Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:42:20 -0400 | From | Patrick McFarland <> | Subject | Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4 |
| |
Ill reiterate something here, im on a p133 with 16 megs. Yeah, the kind of the crappy ide controller that eats cpu time to swap. (Enough so that my mouse pointer will freeze in X that its swapping so much. Swapping is the only thing ive found that can pull that off) Swapping the least ammount would be the best for a box like that.
On 13-Oct-2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Patrick McFarland wrote: > > > Hmm, I see that as very bad. There should be a bunch of sysctls to do > > that easily. > > See /proc/sys/vm/* and the documentation ;) > > > Also, I heard that 2.4 (and I'm assuming 2.2 as well) swaps pages on a > > last-used-age basis, instead of either a number-of-times-used or a > > hybrid of the two. That kinda seems stupid, > > Don't worry since it's not true, at least the VM in the -ac > kernels _does_ use a hybrid of access recency and frequency > to determine page replacement. > > The -linus kernel, however only has LRU-like selection. > > At the moment the -linus kernel is faster than the -ac kernel > for some workloads. This may have something to do with better > clusterable IO ... when page replacement is less precise the > chance that IO is clusterable is probably larger due to the > way we scan. > > I plan to do more explicit IO clustering in -ac to try and > remedy this difference. > > regards, > > Rik > -- > DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/ (volunteers needed) > > http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ >
-- Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || unknown@panax.com [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |