-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed electrons into the ether that resembled:
> The memory manager uses an algorithm to decide which processes to kill
> when it runs out of memory. It's called the OOM (Out Of Memory) killer.
> I haven't been keeping up with kernel
Feigning erudition, m.w.chang wrote:
% are you sure about this? it's in the source codes? I suppose any normal
% kernel would suggest scream for help and halted if not gracefully
% shutting down the system. I suppose you were joking. :)
The memory manager uses an algorithm to decide which processe
are you sure about this? it's in the source codes? I suppose any normal
kernel would suggest scream for help and halted if not gracefully
shutting down the system. I suppose you were joking. :)
> All recent 2.4.x kernels consume physical memory before going to swap.
> That said, completely disabli
On 12/30/02 15:40, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On 12/30/02 15:33, Marvin P. Dickens wrote:
> Also, just so you know Lonnie: This is rediculous.
Agreed, telling people to turn off swap to improve performance, is
ridiculous.
Just to stick my $.02 in here and stir up the pot. let's talk
mainfram
On 12/30/02 16:20, Marvin P. Dickens wrote:
you provided no references,
and just did a lot of hand waving about what is happening on other mailing
lists with respect to a bleeding edge _unstable_ kernel.
Lonnie, ever since you became an editor on this site you think you know it all.
I've bee
> On 12/30/02 15:33, Marvin P. Dickens wrote:
> > Also, just so you know Lonnie: This is rediculous.
>
> Agreed, telling people to turn off swap to improve performance, is
> ridiculous.
>
Just to stick my $.02 in here and stir up the pot. let's talk
mainframes for a minute.
On IBM mainf
> you provided no references,
> and just did a lot of hand waving about what is happening on other mailing
> lists with respect to a bleeding edge _unstable_ kernel.
Lonnie, ever since you became an editor on this site you think you know it all.
Well, you don't. Further, you have a big ego and
On 12/30/02 15:33, Marvin P. Dickens wrote:
Also, just so you know Lonnie: This is rediculous.
Agreed, telling people to turn off swap to improve performance, is
ridiculous.
--
~
L. Friedman [EMAI
> The only discussion is over your claim that disabling swap improves
> performaance, which it does not under a 2.4.x kernel. Or if it does, you
> haven't provided any documentation to back up that asertion.
Yes it does and it's not just my claim. I've got things to do tonight
and tommorrow ni
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Marvin P. Dickens wrote:
>
> > So, the question remains, how does *disabling* swap aid in system performance.
>Without swap, how does the kernel "make unused pages available for other work"?
>
> It does not use swap pages unless they are needed. Swap pages are slower than ram.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Marvin P. Dickens wrote:
>
> > THis may all be well & true, however it still doesnt' address the fact
> > that disabling swap is not a performance enhancement, but rather a
> > performance degradation.
> >
> > --
> > ~
> So, the question remains, how does *disabling* swap aid in system performance.
>Without swap, how does the kernel "make unused pages available for other work"?
It does not use swap pages unless they are needed. Swap pages are slower than ram.
> I'll agree with you here. So what you're *reall
> THis may all be well & true, however it still doesnt' address the fact
> that disabling swap is not a performance enhancement, but rather a
> performance degradation.
>
> --
> ~~
> Lonni J Friedman
On 12/30/2002 2:30 PM, someone claiming to be Net Llama! wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Marvin P. Dickens wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:44:09 -0500
Tim Wunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But, what could possibly be *gained*, performance-wise, by turning swap off?
If swap isn't needed, it won't be
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Marvin P. Dickens wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:44:09 -0500
> Tim Wunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But, what could possibly be *gained*, performance-wise, by turning swap off?
> > If swap isn't needed, it won't be used...
>
>
>
> Linux kernel code and data are not swap
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:44:09 -0500
Tim Wunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, what could possibly be *gained*, performance-wise, by turning swap off?
> If swap isn't needed, it won't be used...
Linux kernel code and data are not swappable and are never moved to
swap. User code never needs t
On 12/30/2002 12:40 PM, someone claiming to be Marvin P. Dickens wrote:
Regarding turning swap off, As I said in my last post: "I know alot
of people do not want to run a system without a swap space".
But, what could possibly be *gained*, performance-wise, by turning swap off? If swap isn't
>
> I beg to differ. AFAIK back in 1998 there were no drives in production
> that had 15k, or even 10k RPMs.
Many of the scsi drives that IBM was actively selling on thier AIX platform ran at 10K
in 1997 (And you could buy OEM versions for PC's if you had the money) and I even saw
some 15K
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Marvin P. Dickens wrote:
> (1) DISABLING SWAP SPACE
>
> Many programs run best without a swap space. With memory sizes increasing and hard
>drives still rotating at the same rate they were spinning in 1998, swap spaces are
>pointless (If you have the RAM... ). The question th
A couple of performance enhancements that I use:
(1) DISABLING SWAP SPACE
Many programs run best without a swap space. With memory sizes increasing and hard
drives still rotating at the same rate they were spinning in 1998, swap spaces are
pointless (If you have the RAM... ). The question
20 matches
Mail list logo
