[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:0.111 / U:0.988 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site