Pete Santiago wrote: >> You're right it shouldn't eat swap, only if the buffers/cache is >> bigger than the total space by loaded apps and libraries. The 916k you >> see there are probably least used pages downgraded to swap, which is a >> good thing because it usually means that Linux is taking back physical >> memory and is putting it into good use. >> And of course Linux's VM is not perfect
> It's not perfect, but it's better than M$'s. 2.6 kernel performs a lot > better than the 2.4 kernel included with fedora 1. Any technical reasons as to how Linux's VM is superior to NT/XP's? I have heard a lot of complaints on kerneltrap.org about how 2.6's default swap behaviour likes to move dormant pages out to disk quite early on and this makes for a slow startup when you re-click, say, a Mozilla window that you haven't touched in a long time. This actually reminds me a lot about Win XP behaviour I have observed and leads me to believe that architects of both systems made similar decisions. There are some solid technical arguments for this behaviour, but in my own experience, I side more with the user experience arguments _against_ such swappiness. With Linux, you can change /proc/swappiness to prevent this sort of thing from happening at the cost of smaller disk caches. XP might also have some hidden registry setting to deal with this. -- reply-to: a n d y @ n e o t i t a n s . c o m http://heecheesoft.blogspot.com -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
