[lkml]   [1998]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: some memory/swap thoughts
    On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Jan Gyselinck wrote:

    > Now, 5 meg as a cache, isn't that too much?? Some people think this is
    Nope, I routinly run with 80MB swap (here and at home.) And it's a
    difficult question, because there are tradeoffs: Either you want one bzip
    to run fast, or you want a dozen bzip par. run with high troughput.
    (That's nicely demonstrated by EIDE/SCSI on a multiuser server: Replacing
    a 5 yrs old SCSI disc with a new EIDE that was in benchmarks 3-4 times
    faster resulted in grinding teh server to a halt. I had to replace EIDE
    disc with a new SCSI disc, which again in benchmarks is about 50-60% of
    the speed of the EIDE disc, but I can do background kernel recompiles
    without anyone even noticing :) ).

    > needed, well I can tell you, it isn't. A year ago, I did some testing on
    > a 486DX33 with 8 meg, running DOS/winslows 3.11. I tried different
    > cache-sizes (with pc-cache) and measured the speedup while starting up
    Comparing the Linux cache subsystem to SMARTDRV is like doing performance
    testing on LADA and then applying the findings to BMW/Cadillac/... They
    may hald true, but they may hold also not true!
    > MS-Word. Maybe you think that's not the way to test this, but why not?
    > You test the speed-up in real-life applications, because that's what you
    > do all day. So, speedup from 0 to 64 kB cache, 20 seconds, from 64 to 128
    > kB cache, 14 seconds, from 128 to 256 kB, 6 seconds, from 256 to 512 kB, 3
    > seconds, and from 512 to 1024 kB, 1 second. Now why in gods name would
    Again, on a Single-User box a different memory management may seem better.
    (But what happens if the single-user becomes a power user and begins to
    ``multitask'' heavily?)
    > one want 5 meg of cache? It will increase the speed of disk-activity with
    > maybe 1 second of a 2,5 meg cache. My oppinion is that for 16 meg of
    > memory, the minimum-limit for a disk-cache should be 256kB, not 5 meg!!
    Nope, that sucks. I know how NeXT with 800kb-2MB cache runs on the same
    hardware as Linux. Limiting the cache is not a very clever thing.
    > Okay, you say, but what about all those idling programs that are stuck in
    > memory, and just take up memory from the cache. I know, I know, there are
    > cases where it's needed to run such programs, but not always. People are
    > running to many idle programs these days! Why do you think there is a
    Nope. By definitation a process that does a sleep(3600); should not be a
    hurden on the system. -> That's usual POSIX coding understanding.
    And not all can be handled by inetd, and not all should be handled.
    > inet-daemon? So that there don't need to be a dozen idle processes who
    > are checking if there isn't something knocking on there port. Running 6
    They are not checking. They are blocked. And that means they are eligible
    for swapping.
    > or more agetty's? There exists something like a console spawn daemon, you
    Nice. And what if each of the ``getty's'' does a different thing? (One
    menu for system halt/restart/etc., one menu to restart gpm [Did you notice
    it's quite impossible to find GOOD 3 button trackballs today, especially
    if you don't want to pay MEGABUCKs? I've got one here, that seems to
    ``powerdown'' and needs to be restarted with button pressed, ...]

    > If I run a bash on a console, and I do something on another console for a
    > while, and I return to the first one, I want the bash-process to respond
    > immediatly to my key-strokes. I don't like to wait for it until it's
    > loaded from swap. My opinion is this: if I run something, it is because
    > it needs to run, and it must be able to respond immediatly. If this is
    But Linux is Unix and by definition is a server OS. If you want a buggy
    scheduler implementation, than go buy OS/2 or NT *g*. (I've seen a nice
    SQL server for OS/2, but the scheduler was quite broken: It automatically
    decreased the priority of the server if you minimized it. So the Server
    had to run in foreground all the time, ...)
    > not so, I wont run it. I don't have memory to throw around, I need every
    > bit. (And no, memory for a portable is not that cheap)
    Than you want to use it more cleverly than to have say 900kb wasted on
    bash blocked on read(0,..,..);

    > So think about this, when you people change something in the
    > memory-management of linux, because it'll run on low-budget and
    > high-budget systems...
    The point is, that Linux is as a server OS more optimized for the
    multitasking/multiuser troughput. And that's the complicated one: If you
    want to run one thing a time, than DOS quite cut it :)

    > Jan Gyselink
    > for the moment a swapping linux-user
    Nothing bad about swapping. (And running bzip on a underpowered machine
    was always painful. If it wouldn't be so painful, than bzip would have
    long replaced gzip, right?)

    > PS: i hope .90 is better, 'll try it tonight, but after I rebooted,
    > because my console is messed up by Xwindows, who didn't restore the state
    > after it finished (maybe caused by to much swapping?????)
    Why should swapping influence this? *wonder*


    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:0.036 / U:119.056 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site