Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!decwrl!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!unido!nixhhs!andreas From: andreas@nixhhs.UUCP (Andreas Wettengel) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: Increasing buffersize causes real problems Message-ID: <1297@nixhhs.UUCP> Date: 29 Jun 90 06:52:06 GMT References: <1865@runxtsa.runx.oz.au> <90.179.12:00:44@ira.uka.de> Organization: Nixdorf Computer AG, Hamburg Lines: 24 Hello, In article <90.179.12:00:44@ira.uka.de> Guenther Schreiner writes: >In article <1865@runxtsa.runx.oz.au> brucee@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Bruce >Evans) writes: >>Minix-386 uses NR_BUFS = 320 and NR_BUF_HASH = 512. I think a much smaller [...] >If i do this on my 2 MB ATARI-ST with the given values the system isn't able >to boot. I got a message like 'unable to report size to mm'. I must reduce >the values to something like NR_BUFS = 100 NR_BUF_HASH = 64 to get it running. >Perhaps this comes from the 16 bit ST MINIX int's - MINIX-386 (Bruce ?) uses >32 bit i believe. I am running NR_BUFS=160 and NR_BUF_HASH = 256 without problems on a 1 MB ST. The sizes are computed in clicks (256 bytes), so at least 8 MB (16 if there is no bug in unsigned arithmetic...) can be expressed that way. Recompiling fs and kernel was sufficient for me. Andreas -- Andreas Wettengel | Nixdorf Computer AG Tel. +49 40/6371-2423 | Ueberseering 33 (...uunet!)unido!nixhhs!andreas | 2000 Hamburg 60 NERV: nixhhs!andreas.eunet | West Germany