lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: VM performance
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Ed Lang wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:38:39PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > "Is this something that normal people would ever really care deeply
> > > > about?"
> > >
> > > Probably, if there are people other than me that are still using systems
> > > with 16mb of physical RAM. There probably are some. Maybe.
>
> I, for one, have a box with 16M of RAM.

I have a number with 8M, a couple with 16M, and one with 4M.

> > On 32Mb 2.2.0pre9 works ok but not well [1] - I can build a kernel without
> > much swapping while doing other stuff, on 2.1.132 I can build two
> > kernels in parallel with the same kind of feel while 2.2.0x chokes up
> > horribly at this point.
> >
> > [1] It still beats 2.0.x I should point out 8)
> >
> >
> > On 8Mb 2.2.0pre6, pre8, pre9 are basically unusable while 2.1.132 was fine
> >
>
> Ye gods. If that's the case, 2.2.0 sure ain't going on my 386 with 6M of RAM
> (which is all I have at the moment, but that's a long story).

I also find this very distressing as two of my routers have 8M of ram
while another has 4M, and both perform fairly well while doing any number of
things. My secondary name server and secondary mail server also has 8M of ram.

If this can't be changed for 2.2.0 (Anyone know what's causing it?),
perhaps in 2.2.1? Or maybe some option ("low mem?") that will turn off memory
hogs and go back to prior slower but less memory eating routines? If this is
possible?

Stephen


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.063 / U:1.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site