From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 27 May 2002 05:25:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 27 May 2002 05:25:03 -0400 Received: from Morgoth.esiway.net ([193.194.16.157]:42762 "EHLO Morgoth.esiway.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 27 May 2002 05:25:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 11:24:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Marco Colombo To: Austin Gonyou cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again In-Reply-To: <1022261405.9617.39.camel@UberGeek> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 24 May 2002, Austin Gonyou wrote: > On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 11:31, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > >> I'm not sure exactly what Roy was doing, but we were taking a machine > > >> with 16Gb of RAM, and reading files into the page cache - I think we built up > > >> 8 million buffer_heads according to slabinfo ... on a P4 they're 128 bytes each, > > >> on a P3 96 bytes. > > > > > > The buffer heads one would make sense. I only test on realistic sized systems. > > > > Well, it'll still waste valuable memory there too, though you may not totally kill it. > > > > > Once you pass 4Gb there are so many problems its not worth using x86 in the > > > long run > > > I assume that you mean by "not worth using x86" you're referring to say, > degraded performance over other platforms? Well...if you talk > price/performance, using x86 is perfect in those terms since you can buy > more boxes and have a more fluid architecture, rather than building a > monolithic system. Monolithic systems aren't always the best. Just look > at Fermilab! Uh? There are many alpha-based clusters out there. Why do you think !x86 == monolithic? .TM. -- ____/ ____/ / / / / Marco Colombo ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager / / / ESI s.r.l. _____/ _____/ _/ Colombo@ESI.it