Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262576AbTI1PwL (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:52:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262586AbTI1PwL (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:52:11 -0400 Received: from artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.125]:35741 "EHLO artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262576AbTI1PwJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:52:09 -0400 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:52:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikulas Patocka To: "Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" 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 In-Reply-To: <3F76DCEC.60508@softhome.net> Message-ID: References:

<3F75EC3B.4030305@softhome.net> <20030927202148.GA31080@k3.hellgate.ch> <3F76DCEC.60508@softhome.net> 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 > > 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? Yes, it should. If you have 0.25GB, it can be copied into cache. If you have 0.125GB, it doesn't fit there. Mikulas - 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/