lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux 2.4.10-pre11
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:55:46AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:33:15AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:53:10PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > > Don't you agree that your code can introduce new stability bugs ?
> > > >
> > > > not anything that can corrupt randomly your hd.
> > >
> > > Sure, the old code did not corrupt hd's randomly, did it?
> > >
> > > Let me redo the question: Don't you think the old stinky and slow code was
> > > reasonably stable ? :)
> >
> > As said in the other email, just check 2.4 l-k reports of this week,
> > last week etc.., I've lots of private reports too. While for everybody
> > 2.2.19 is working fine.
>
> Have you seen any problem report which does not happen with anon intensive
> workloads ?

of course, all the mysql/postgres db reports I got were non anon
intensive I assume, I assume they had enough ram, they all said 2.2 was
fine.

> As far as I've noted, people usually report performance problems when
> running anon intensive workloads. For those cases, I'm pretty sure the
> swap_out() loop is the fuckup: the swap allocation code is really a _CRAP_
> for the current VM.

I don't think that was the case, 2.2 has the same swap_out loop.

Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.136 / U:6.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site