Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 19:20:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 19:19:51 -0500 Received: from ns.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.10]:36370 "HELO heather.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 19:19:36 -0500 Message-Id: <200201040019.BAA30736@webserver.ithnet.com> Cc: Andreas Hartmann , Kernel-Mailingliste Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 01:19:28 +0100 Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable To: Ken Brownfield Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: IMHO/0.97.1 (Webmail for Roxen) In-Reply-To: <20020103142301.C4759@asooo.flowerfire.com> From: Stephan von Krawczynski Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Unfortunately, I lost the response that basically said "2.4 looks stable > to me", but let me count the ways in which I agree with Andreas' > sentiment: > > A) VM has major issues On all boxes I run currently (all 1GB or below RAM), I cannot find _major_ issues. > 2) VM falls down on large-memory machines with a > high inode count (slocate/updatedb, i/dcache) Must be beyond the GB range. > 3) Memory allocation failures and OOM triggers > even though caches remain full. I have not had one up to now in everyday life with 2.4.17 > 4) Other bugs fixed in -aa and others Hm, well I would expect Andrea to do tuning and fixing as experience evolves... > B) Live- and dead-locks that I'm seeing on all 2.4 production > machines > 2.4.9, possibly related to A. But how will I > ever find out? Me = none up to now I could track down to a kernel issue. The single one I had was with a distro kernel around 2.4.10 and flaky hardware. > C) IO-APIC code that requires noapic on any and all SMP > machines that I've ever run on. I am currently running 5 Asus CUV4X-D based SMP boxes all with apic _on_, amongst which are squids, sql servers, workstation type setups (2 my very own). > I don't have anything against anyone here -- I think everyone is doing a > fine job. It's an issue of acceptance of the problem and focus. These > issues are all showstoppers for me, and while I don't represent the 90% > of the Linux market that is UP desktops, IMHO future work on the kernel > will be degraded by basic functionality that continues to cause > problems. Have you run _yourself_ into a problem with 2.4.17? I mean it is not perfect of course, but it is far better than you make it look. I could hand the brown bag to all versions below about 2.4.15 pretty easy, but since 2.4.16 it has really become hard to shoot it down for me. Ok, I use only pretty selected hardware, but there are reasons I do, and they are not related to the kernel in first place. Regards, Stephan - 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/