[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [OT] No Swap. Re: [BUG 2.6.90-test5] kernel shits itself with 48mb ram under moderate load
	Hello Ihar ,

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
> Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >>>Oh, it does matter. My workstation has 1 GB RAM and 2 GB swap and I hardly
> >>>see any problems with paging <g>.
> >> Because your workload doesn't hit the 1GB limit.
> >> Actually we just do not have fast enough I/O + CPU to utilize 1GB of
> >>RAM efficiently.
> >> But if you will go into 128MB of RAM - you will see difference, where
> >>should be no difference.
> >> Let's say (my personal exp.) cp'ing of kernel source with 0.5/0.25 GB
> >>RAM dosn't differ. Aproximately the same time. 0.25GB little bit faster
> >>- but it can be written off to noise. But try to do the same cp with
> >>0.125GB - this cp (as of RH 2.4.20-20.9 +ext3 -swap) takes _*two*_ times
> >>longer. Should it be?
> > Yes, it should. If you have 0.25GB, it can be copied into cache. If you
> > have 0.125GB, it doesn't fit there.
> So you want to say to effectively copy (or whatever) 40GB harddrive I
> have to have 40GB of RAM? Ridiculous.
> Especially if copying is done in 4k lumps. (cp's default buffer)
> <sarcasm flavour=sad> Hopefully not everyone shares your opinion. </sarcasm>
If I am correct , I beleive he is speaking of the amount of
MEMORY needed to cache the copy of file data WITHOUT a swap
partit. or file . Hth , JimL
| James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS |
| Network Engineer | P.O. Box 854 | Give me Linux |
| | Coudersport PA 16915 | only on AXP |
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 13:48    [W:0.061 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site