Message-ID: <3F42342A.8050605@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:28:58 -0400
From: "Anthony R." <russo.lutions@verizon.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cache limit
References: <3F41AA15.1020802@verizon.net> <200308190533.h7J5XoL06419@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
In-Reply-To: <200308190533.h7J5XoL06419@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1128
Lines: 38


>>another program needs more memory, so it shouldn't swap, but that is not
>>the
>>behaviour I am seeing.
>>
>>Can anyone help point me in the right direction?
>>    
>>
>
>I'd say stop allocating insane amounts of swap.
>Frankly, with 2G you may run without swap at all.
>  
>
I'm not sure how you knew I had 2GB of swap. ;)
I just always thought it was a good idea to have some just in case.
I did not know having swap would actually, in some cases, degrade
performance.

Are you saying that, if I turn off swap, the amount of cache used will
be the same, but that when other programs need more memory, the kernel
will take it from cache? If so, I will try, since that would be
an ideal solution.

And while O_STREAMING sounds good, I'm not really up for rewriting
all the rsync-like apps. I want my OS to deal with it.

Thanks.

-- tony
"Surrender to the Void." -- John Lennon


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/