Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:13:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:13:14 -0400 Received: from asterix.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de ([134.109.132.84]:62186 "EHLO asterix.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:12:53 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:12:46 +0200 From: Ingo Oeser To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Rik van Riel , LA Walsh , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition limit Message-ID: <20010429171246.N679@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de> In-Reply-To:

Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from hugh@veritas.com on Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 11:40:40PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 11:40:40PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > An interesting option (though with less-than-stellar performance > > > characteristics) would be a dynamically expanding swapfile. If you're > > > going to be hit with swap penalties, it may be useful to not have to > > > pre-reserve something you only hit once in a great while. > > This makes amazingly little sense since you'd still need to > > pre-reserve the disk space the swapfile grows into. > It makes roughly the same sense as over-committing memory. > Both are useful, both are unreliable. And we have the one, so we should also implement the other one to be totally unreliable. *gd&r* Ingo Oeser -- 10.+11.03.2001 - 3. Chemnitzer LinuxTag <<<<<<<<<<<< been there and had much fun >>>>>>>>>>>> - 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/