[lkml]   [1998]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.1.89 broken?

On 11-Mar-98 Rik van Riel wrote:
> When you just grab random disk cache memory, that piece
> of data might be needed again, and has to be reread from
> the (spread-out) filesystem.
> Swapping, OTOH, is done in a clustered way (less seek-time)
> on a small part of the disk (still less seek-time).
> I would be interested though, in the partition layout of
> the people who saw worse/better performance:
> begin end
> worse: data sys data swap
> better: data swap sys data
> ???

In my particular case, data, sys and swap are all on separate hard
disks. The swap partition shares a drive which I use for archiving so it
sees little use and for all intents and purposes is its own disk.

> Maybe something like this could explain the difference.
> Personally, when I switched from swap at the far end of
> the disk to swap in the middle (somewhere autumn '95) I
> saw a _HUGE_ improvement.
> Now, I tend to tune my stuff for swap-in-the-middle situations,
> since I only have swap-in-the-middle as a test situation (and
> who wants to run with slow swap anyway?).
> If this explains the difference, I'll fix it by making
> page-aging tunable for the following categories:
> - user pages
> - cache pages
> - buffer pages
> - shared pages (?)

I like that last idea, however I think the big problem is the
amount of data the kernel transfers to swap at once - like megs and megs
in one shot. The system freezes pretty hard during these massive swap

Scott Lampert | Home Page:
<> | PGP Key: finger
"Black holes are where God +-----------------------------------------
divided by zero."

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:0.058 / U:0.892 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site