[lkml]   [1998]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.1.89 broken?
    Rik van Riel <> writes:

    > On 10 Mar 1998, Trond Eivind =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Glomsr=F8d?= wrote:
    > > Scott Lampert <> writes:
    > > > It works for me on my 233MMX, however it seems to be far
    > > > less efficient than prior kernels when it comes to memory handling.
    > > > It doesn't seem to want to give up much memory from the disk cache,
    > > > prefering to stick stuff in swap first.
    > >
    > > That is my experience as well... I've got 80 MB. It was happy with
    > > about 56 MB for caches, 4 MB free and a little less than 20 MB
    > > used. Oh - and 75 MB used swap.
    > You both seem to be ignoring the fact that sticking
    > unused stuff in swap is better than freeing disk
    > cache pages.

    I am of the belief that having almost 60 MB disk cache on a 60
    MBworkstation is a bit of an overkill...

    > In 2.1.89 we age disk cache pages in
    > much the same way we age private (in-swap) pages.
    > Because the aging is the same, you can be quite sure
    > that Linux is doing the right thing...
    > (and I haven't heard you about worse performance either)

    OK - the performance is worse for me (I thought that was implicit, given
    the huge swap) since it spends much time swapping - during which it is
    utterly irresponsive.

    Trond Eivind Glomsrød **

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.022 / U:0.248 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site