[lkml]   [1996]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Bugs and wishes in memory management area

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Alan Cox wrote:

> > Linux-2 + Xserver + fvwm (95) + severall xterm + bash + xemacs + gcc +
> > some application processes = more than 16 Mb.
> Well let me suggest something
> Linux-2.0 + Xserver -su -bs + original fvwm + rxvts + ash + joe in rxvt + lcc
> Now tell me the problem is the kernel

I (we) have no problems with linux kernel. But we have problems with some
other systems (WNT, Bletch95, SCO, etc..).
I use original fvwm and some traditional editor each time I donnot need
something more sophisticated = most of the time (a console is often enough).
However, I seems to me that most linux users like sophisticated tools (??).

> > A serious ftp server or web server probably use more than 64 MB.
> Web servers need little RAM. Current FTP servers need a lot because wu.ftpd
> is a pile of crud when it comes to the word 'efficient'. I dunno if other
> ftpds are better and useful. Troll ftpd is efficient but not quite right
> somewhere.

Thanks for this information.

> > Now imagine a system with 128 MB of RAM and some controller(s) that use(s)
> > ISA/DMA and:
> If you can afford 128Mb of RAM you can afford PCI bus DMA

Obvious, but sometimes not applied.

> > Managing such situation may complexify the kernel too much.
> Indeed
> > In this case, garbaging 1 MB of memory at startup for ISA/DMA need is
> > probably a good solution.
> Why waste memory ?

Just to show that "silly+simple" can be cleverer than "complex".
Obviously we can do something better than just losing 1MB.
"Simple and clever" is indeed better.

Regards, Gerard.

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.055 / U:1.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site