Hi Maciej Zenczykowski,
> This is happening on a freshly installed RH7.1 notebook.
> Celeron 400 + 64 mb ram, kernel as shipped (2.4.2-2, have not even
> recompiled it yet). I have a 140 mb swap partition set up but at the time
> this happened it was OFF. I was (still am) running X + twm + two
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 06:32:16PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Monday 25 June 2001 18:16, Colonel wrote:
> > Had you tried fvwm-1.24r (the original) ? It was designed long ago to
> > be lean and fast on the desktop. I know it whips KDE.
>
> Yes, I did. It's even faster than xfce but the
On Monday 25 June 2001 18:16, Colonel wrote:
> In clouddancer.list.kernel, you wrote:
> >Further to that, I followed Alan's lead and installed xfce. My laptop,
> > which was really suffering under Gnome with 64 meg (much more so under
> > KDE) is suddenly light on its feet. Not to mention that i
On 25 Jun 2001, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2001 22:36:25 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > recompiled it yet). I have a 140 mb swap partition set up but at the time
> > > this happened it was OFF. I was (still am) running X + twm + two xterms
> > >
> > > top gives me:
> > > mem: 62144k av, 611
In clouddancer.list.kernel, you wrote:
>
>Further to that, I followed Alan's lead and installed xfce. My laptop, which
>was really suffering under Gnome with 64 meg (much more so under KDE) is
>suddenly light on its feet. Not to mention that it built from source in
>under 10 minutes and insta
On Monday 25 June 2001 11:21, Helge Hafting wrote:
> If it still is too slow - add RAM or run fewer/smaller apps.
> Opera is a low-memory alternative to netscape. Avoiding
> gnome/kde apps when plain X apps are available is also a good idea
> when you're short on memory. Using low resolution and
Maciej Zenczykowski wrote:
> Now my question is how can it be
> thrashing with swap explicitly turned off?
Easy. Linux throws executables out from memory because they _can_
be fetched again from disk. Yes - this definitely gives trashing
if you loose almost all your executables this way.
> [o
On 24 Jun 2001 22:36:25 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > recompiled it yet). I have a 140 mb swap partition set up but at the time
> > this happened it was OFF. I was (still am) running X + twm + two xterms
> >
> > top gives me:
> > mem: 62144k av, 61180k used, 956k free, 0k shrd, 76 buff, 2636 cache
> recompiled it yet). I have a 140 mb swap partition set up but at the time
> this happened it was OFF. I was (still am) running X + twm + two xterms
>
> top gives me:
> mem: 62144k av, 61180k used, 956k free, 0k shrd, 76 buff, 2636 cached
> swap: 0k av, 0k used, 0k free [as expected]
Not as e
>Now my question is how can it be
>thrashing with swap explicitly turned off?
Easy. All applications are themselves swap space - the binary is
merely memory-mapped onto the executable file. When the system gets
low on memory, the only thing it can do is purge some binary pages,
and then repe
10 matches
Mail list logo
