[lkml]   [1998]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: a patch that might help on small-memory machines (was Re: 2.1 MM [was: Re: 2.2 will never come..])
On 7 Jul 1998, Kevin Buhr wrote:

>> >The patch, against 2.1.106, is a bit long for the list:
>> >
>> >
>> I have tried it and the kernel started to make mess. No fs corruption
>> though. After a lot of IO the HD continued to run. I couldn' t reboot,
>> and I had to press reset. I could have applyed the patch badly since I had
>> to apply it partly by hand due lots of patch reject...

Now I applyed the right patch and it perform in the same way. I have not
the /proc sysctl and I had to reset again after cp /tmp/zero /dev/null.

>Also, I've noticed that the default sysctl settings for my inode
>freeing code are *way* too agressive for the default kernel swap
>settings. This is because I've been using:
> echo 10 80 90 > /proc/sys/vm/pagecache
> echo 3 25 50 > /proc/sys/vm/buffermem

I set these settings and it continue to perform worse than the stock
kernel _during_ cp file /dev/null where file is very long.

Did you tried cp file /dev/null?

Andrea[s] Arcangeli

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean