Messages in this thread | | | From | teamwork@freemail ... | Subject | Linux Tuning: Objective | Date | Sun, 25 Apr 1999 06:28:45 GMT |
| |
Dear sirs and madams,
After reading a lot of mails regarding tuning Linux to achieve optimal performance, there is no argument of our common objective. However, one question does come to mind, and it is: In what way should we achieve the objective?
In other words, what kinds of "products" (for being lack of a better word) should this "Linux Tuning" project gives to the Linux community at large?
Should it be a depository of patches?
Should it be one or more howtos?
Should it be a mailing list (linux-perf) doing the Q & A style of thing?
Should it be a web site where people can go in and hit the "SCSI" button if they want to know if they can tune their Linux machine's SCSI devices?
Or should it be all of the above?
While we haven't lay down a lot of things for this "Linux Tuning" project yet, I believe this is the best time for all of us to come to a consensus of what we actually want to do, and how do we achieve it.
Does anyone have any comment on this?
Also, I am including a message I got from the L-K list for those who may've missed it.
A quote from the message, IMVHO, succinctly summarizes the "core" of this "Linux Tuning" project:
"Whatever the 'linux tuning' project results in, I hope at its core, it creates _information_; what can you do, and what it means, and why.
Once the information is gathered, you can package it up in different ways, according to various biases."
Does anyone have any comment on this as well?
Here is the entire message:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: set@pobox.com Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:30:15 -0400 (EWT) Subject: Re: Linux Tuning.
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Greg Lindahl wrote:
@> @>> PS. I had this idea when I noticed that precious 256 bytes are wasted for @>> modprobe path and wanted to make it tunable... @> @>This is an excellent example of something that's not worth tuning. @> @>-- g @>
Admitedly, 256 bytes is a bit of nothing, but people trying to cram linux into extreme small memory machines, perhaps for embedded applications are interested in reducing any unneeded memory consumption. The linux-lite people might have different ideas about tuning, than someone with a fat router. Whatever the 'linux tuning' project results in, I hope at its core, it creates _information_; what can you do, and what it means, and why. Once the information is gathered, you can package it up in different ways, according to various biases.
Paul
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for reading.
Sincerely, Pete teamwork@freemail.c3.hu
- 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/
| |