[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
Rik van Riel wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> - We expect that the lots-of-dirty-anon-memory-over-swap-over-network
>> scenario might still cause deadlocks.
>> I assert that this can be solved by putting swap on local disks.
>> Peter
>> asserts that this isn't acceptable due to disk unreliability. I point
>> out that local disk reliability can be increased via MD, all goes
>> quiet.
>> A good exposition which helps us to understand whether and why a
>> significant proportion of the target user base still wishes to do
>> swap-over-network would be useful.
> You cannot put disks in many models of blade servers.
> At all.

Or many thin clients in general. They are used in quite a few schools
over here, running Linux.
Some of them do in fact have space for disks, but disks adds costs
(heat, power, replacing failed drives)
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: 2006-08-20 03:37    [W:0.163 / U:9.360 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site