Miles Lane wrote:
>
> So please, if you have new facts that you want to offer that
> will help us characterize and understand these VM issues better
> or discover new problems, feel free to share them. But if you
> just want to rant, I, for one, would rather you didn't.
*sigh*
Not to prolong
Miles Lane wrote:
So please, if you have new facts that you want to offer that
will help us characterize and understand these VM issues better
or discover new problems, feel free to share them. But if you
just want to rant, I, for one, would rather you didn't.
*sigh*
Not to prolong an
Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> Can you try the patch below to see if it helps? If you watch
> with vmstat, you should see swap shrinking after your test.
> Let is shrink a while and then see how long swapoff takes.
> Under a normal load, it'll munch a handfull of them at least
> once a second and
"Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
>
> Derek Glidden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The problem I reported is not that 2.4 uses huge amounts of swap but
> > that trying to recover that swap off of disk under 2.4 can leave the
> > machine in an entirely unre
"Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
>
> > Or are you saying that if someone is unhappy with a particular
> > situation, they should just keep their mouth shut and accept it?
>
> It's worth complaining about. It is also worth digging into and find
> out what the real problem is. I have a hunch that
John Alvord wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:31:28 -0400, Derek Glidden
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm beginning to be amazed at the Linux VM hackers' attitudes regarding
> >this problem. I expect this sort of behaviour from academics - ig
> Funny. I can count many ways in which 4.3BSD, SunOS{3,4} and post-4.4 BSD
> systems I've used were broken, but I've never thought that swap==2*RAM rule
> was one of them.
Yes, but Linux isn't 4.3BSD, SunOS or post-4.4 BSD. Not to mention, all
other OS's I've had experience using *don't*
Helge Hafting wrote:
>
> The drive is inactive because it isn't needed, the machine is
> running loops on data in memory. And it is unresponsive because
> nothing else is scheduled, maybe "swapoff" is easier to implement
I don't quite get what you're saying. If the system becomes
unresponsive
Xavier Bestel wrote:
>
> Did you try to put twice as much swap as you have RAM ? (e.g. add a 512M
> swapfile to your box)
> This is what Linus recommended for 2.4 (swap = 2 * RAM), saying that
> anything less won't do any good: 2.4 overallocates swap even if it
> doesn't use it all. So in your
Bill Pringlemeir wrote:
>
> [snip]
> Derek> overwhelmed. On the system I'm using to write this, with
> Derek> 512MB of RAM and 512MB of swap, I run two copies of this
>
> Please see the following message on the kernel mailing list,
>
> 3086:Linus 2.4.0 notes are quite clear that you need at
Bill Pringlemeir wrote:
[snip]
Derek overwhelmed. On the system I'm using to write this, with
Derek 512MB of RAM and 512MB of swap, I run two copies of this
Please see the following message on the kernel mailing list,
3086:Linus 2.4.0 notes are quite clear that you need at least
Xavier Bestel wrote:
Did you try to put twice as much swap as you have RAM ? (e.g. add a 512M
swapfile to your box)
This is what Linus recommended for 2.4 (swap = 2 * RAM), saying that
anything less won't do any good: 2.4 overallocates swap even if it
doesn't use it all. So in your case
Helge Hafting wrote:
The drive is inactive because it isn't needed, the machine is
running loops on data in memory. And it is unresponsive because
nothing else is scheduled, maybe swapoff is easier to implement
I don't quite get what you're saying. If the system becomes
unresponsive
Funny. I can count many ways in which 4.3BSD, SunOS{3,4} and post-4.4 BSD
systems I've used were broken, but I've never thought that swap==2*RAM rule
was one of them.
Yes, but Linux isn't 4.3BSD, SunOS or post-4.4 BSD. Not to mention, all
other OS's I've had experience using *don't* break
John Alvord wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:31:28 -0400, Derek Glidden
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm beginning to be amazed at the Linux VM hackers' attitudes regarding
this problem. I expect this sort of behaviour from academics - ignoring
real actual problems being reported by real
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Or are you saying that if someone is unhappy with a particular
situation, they should just keep their mouth shut and accept it?
It's worth complaining about. It is also worth digging into and find
out what the real problem is. I have a hunch that this hole
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Derek Glidden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem I reported is not that 2.4 uses huge amounts of swap but
that trying to recover that swap off of disk under 2.4 can leave the
machine in an entirely unresponsive state, while 2.2 handles identical
situations
Mike Galbraith wrote:
Can you try the patch below to see if it helps? If you watch
with vmstat, you should see swap shrinking after your test.
Let is shrink a while and then see how long swapoff takes.
Under a normal load, it'll munch a handfull of them at least
once a second and keep
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 12:16:30PM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> "Jeffrey W. Baker" wrote:
> >
> > Because the 2.4 VM is so broken, and
> > because my machines are frequently deeply swapped,
>
> The swapoff algorithms in 2.2 and 2.4 are basically identical.
> The problem *appears* worse in 2.4
After reading the messages to this list for the last couple of weeks and
playing around on my machine, I'm convinced that the VM system in 2.4 is
still severely broken.
This isn't trying to test extreme low-memory pressure, just how the
system handles recovering from going somewhat into swap,
After reading the messages to this list for the last couple of weeks and
playing around on my machine, I'm convinced that the VM system in 2.4 is
still severely broken.
This isn't trying to test extreme low-memory pressure, just how the
system handles recovering from going somewhat into swap,
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 12:16:30PM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
Because the 2.4 VM is so broken, and
because my machines are frequently deeply swapped,
The swapoff algorithms in 2.2 and 2.4 are basically identical.
The problem *appears* worse in 2.4 because it
22 matches
Mail list logo
