Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262556AbTI1NJd (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Sep 2003 09:09:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262557AbTI1NIX (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Sep 2003 09:08:23 -0400 Received: from natsmtp01.webmailer.de ([192.67.198.81]:13471 "EHLO natsmtp01.webmailer.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262556AbTI1NFZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Sep 2003 09:05:25 -0400 Message-ID: <3F76DCEC.60508@softhome.net> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:06:52 +0200 From: "Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" Organization: Home Sweet Home User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030831 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roger Luethi CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [OT] No Swap. Re: [BUG 2.6.90-test5] kernel shits itself with 48mb ram under moderate load References:

<3F75EC3B.4030305@softhome.net> <20030927202148.GA31080@k3.hellgate.ch> In-Reply-To: <20030927202148.GA31080@k3.hellgate.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 :-) > >> '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 . > 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 - 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/