Re: [OT] No Swap. Re: [BUG 2.6.90-test5] kernel shits itself with 48mb ram under moderate load

["Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" <filia@softhome.net>]

Roger Luethi wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 21:59:55 +0200, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
> 
>>  Better than with swap. This is production workstation - I cannot test 
>>something on it :-(
> 
> 
> I don't think there's much risk involved in running 2.[56]. If it doesn't
> boot, you can go back to 2.4. If it does boot, it won't eat your data.
> YMMV, of course.
> 

   Data corruption? My back-up of work?
   I cannot back-up my data since my comp by itself is backup :-)

> 
>>   <rant>'Paging like crazy' became for me a synonym of Linux. It 
>>doesn't matter how much memory you have. Less == worse. Developers 
> 
> 
> Oh, it does matter. My workstation has 1 GB RAM and 2 GB swap and I hardly
> see any problems with paging <g>.
> 

   Because your workload doesn't hit the 1GB limit.
   Actually we just do not have fast enough I/O + CPU to utilize 1GB of 
RAM efficiently.

   But if you will go into 128MB of RAM - you will see difference, where 
should be no difference.

   Let's say (my personal exp.) cp'ing of kernel source with 0.5/0.25 GB 
RAM dosn't differ. Aproximately the same time. 0.25GB little bit faster 
- but it can be written off to noise. But try to do the same cp with 
0.125GB - this cp (as of RH 2.4.20-20.9 +ext3 -swap) takes _*two*_ times 
longer. Should it be?

> 
>>stopped testing VMM regression on low-memory computers long time ago. 
> 
> Many of the best Linux devs these days work for companies and organizations
> that are in the business of selling or using big iron. They have people on

   Indeed.

-- 
Ihar 'Philips' Filipau  / with best regards from Saarbruecken.
--
   "... and for $64000 question, could you get yourself vaguely
      familiar with the notion of on-topic posting?"
				-- Al Viro @ LKML