From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932429AbWAIQOi (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 11:14:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932437AbWAIQOi (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 11:14:38 -0500 Received: from mail1.kontent.de ([81.88.34.36]:61398 "EHLO Mail1.KONTENT.De") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932429AbWAIQOh (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 11:14:37 -0500 From: Oliver Neukum To: Lee Revell Subject: Re: Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 17:14:27 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 Cc: Robert Hancock , linux-kernel References: <5t06S-7nB-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <200601091702.48955.oliver@neukum.org> <1136822646.9957.35.camel@mindpipe> In-Reply-To: <1136822646.9957.35.camel@mindpipe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200601091714.27303.oliver@neukum.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Montag, 9. Januar 2006 17:04 schrieb Lee Revell: > On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 17:02 +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Montag, 9. Januar 2006 16:15 schrieb Lee Revell: > > > On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 15:28 +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > Am Montag, 9. Januar 2006 15:18 schrieb Robert Hancock: > > > > > Yaroslav Rastrigin wrote: > > > > > > Well, I could find more or less reasonable explanation of this behaviour - different VM policies of two OSes and > > > > > > strangely strong and persistent belief "Free RAM is a wasted RAM" among kernel devs. Free RAM is not a wasted RAM, its a memory waiting to be used ! > > > > > > Whenever it is needed by apps I'm launching or working with. > > > > > > > > > > There is no different VM policy here, Windows behaves quite similarly. > > > > > It does not leave memory around unused, it uses it for disk cache. > > > > > > > > That doesn't mean that the rate of eviction is the same. > > > > Is it possible that read-ahead is not aggressive enough? > > > > > > Enough for what? What is the exact problem you are trying to solve? > > > > Quicker application startup. > > Why do you look to the kernel first? The obvious explanation is that > Linux desktop apps are more bloated than their Windows counterparts. It is the most efficient place. An improvement to the kernel will improve all starting times. Regards Oliver