From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:53:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:52:55 -0400 Received: from iris.mc.com ([192.233.16.119]:64438 "EHLO mc.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:52:37 -0400 From: Mark Salisbury To: "Dr S.M. Huen" , "Dr S.M. Huen" , Kurt Roeckx Subject: Re: Break 2.4 VM in five easy steps Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:40:41 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Sean Hunter , Xavier Bestel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0106061450480H.00684@pc-eng24.mc.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 06 Jun 2001, Dr S.M. Huen wrote: > The whole screaming match is about whether a drastic degradation on using > swap with less than the 2*RAM swap specified by the developers should lead > one to conclude that a kernel is "broken". I would argue that any system that performs substantially worse with swap==1xRAM than a system with swap==0xRAM is fundamentally broken. it seems that w/ todays 2.4.x kernel, people running programs totalling LESS THAN their physical dram are having swap problems. they should not even be using 1 byte of swap. the whole point of swapping pages is to give you more memory to execute programs. if I want to execute 140MB of programs+kernel on a system with 128 MB of ram, I should be able to do the job effectively with ANY amount of "total memory" exceeding 140MB. not some hokey 128MB RAM + 256MB swap just because the kernel it too fscked up to deal with a small swap file. -- /*------------------------------------------------** ** Mark Salisbury | Mercury Computer Systems ** **------------------------------------------------*/