lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectLinux Tuning: Objective
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.143 / U:0.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site