Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S262637AbTI1Rdf (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Sun, 28 Sep 2003 13:33:35 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262640AbTI1Rdf
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sun, 28 Sep 2003 13:33:35 -0400
Received: from filesrv1.system-techniques.com ([199.33.245.55]:20159 "EHLO
	filesrv1.baby-dragons.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S262637AbTI1Rdd (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 28 Sep 2003 13:33:33 -0400
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 13:33:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@baby-dragons.com>
To: "Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" <filia@softhome.net>
cc: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [OT] No Swap. Re: [BUG 2.6.90-test5] kernel shits itself with
 48mb ram under moderate load
In-Reply-To: <3F771893.1020405@softhome.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0309281329480.14330@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
References: <ArQ0.821.23@gated-at.bofh.it> <ArQ0.821.25@gated-at.bofh.it>
 <ArQ0.821.21@gated-at.bofh.it> <ArZC.8f1.9@gated-at.bofh.it>
 <3F75EC3B.4030305@softhome.net> <20030927202148.GA31080@k3.hellgate.ch>
 <3F76DCEC.60508@softhome.net> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0309281747460.13202@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
 <3F771893.1020405@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

	Hello Ihar ,

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
> Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >>>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?
> > Yes, it should. If you have 0.25GB, it can be copied into cache. If you
> > have 0.125GB, it doesn't fit there.
>    So you want to say to effectively copy (or whatever) 40GB harddrive I
> have to have 40GB of RAM? Ridiculous.
>    Especially if copying is done in 4k lumps. (cp's default buffer)
> <sarcasm flavour=sad> Hopefully not everyone shares your opinion. </sarcasm>
	If I am correct ,  I beleive he is speaking of the amount of
	MEMORY needed to cache the copy of file data WITHOUT a swap
	partit. or file .  Hth ,  JimL
-- 
       +------------------------------------------------------------------+
       | James   W.   Laferriere | System    Techniques | Give me VMS     |
       | Network        Engineer |     P.O. Box 854     |  Give me Linux  |
       | babydr@baby-dragons.com | Coudersport PA 16915 |   only  on  AXP |
       +------------------------------------------------------------------+
-
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/