[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:44:39PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:

> This is the core of why we cannot (IMHO) have a discussion
> of whether a patch introducing new VM tunables can go in:
> there is no clear overview of exactly what would need to be
> tunable and how it would help.

It's worse than that. The workload on most typical systems is not
static. The VM *must* be able to cope with dynamic workloads. You
might twiddle all the knobs on your system to make your database run
faster, but end up in such a situation that the next time a mail flood
arrives for sendmail, the whole box locks up because the VM can no
longer adapt.

That's the main problem with static parameters. The problem you are
trying to solve is fundamentally dynamic in most cases (which is also
why magic numbers tend to suck in the VM.)

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:53    [W:0.113 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site