[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, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
    > 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 another problem, indeed ;)

    Ingo, Mike, please keep this in mind when designing
    tunables or deciding which test you want to run today
    in order to look how the VM is performing.

    Basic rule for VM: once you start swapping, you cannot
    win; All you can do is make sure no situation loses
    really badly and most situations perform reasonably.

    Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
    However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

    Send all your spam to (spam digging piggy)

    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:0.022 / U:73.296 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site