----- Original Message -----
> From: "Travis" <[email protected]>
> Never is such a harsh word.
> The point is not all use-cases can be simply solved by physically
> adding more RAM to a system or by mmaping.
I agree with that.
Every time these conversations come up I am always amazed at how many times
"Never" and other absolute terms are tossed around. These systems that we
manage do so many different jobs there's no way to create a single set of rules
that covers every single use case.
If the uses of these systems were limited to exact operational parameters, we'd
be managing Commodore-64's but they're not, they all do different tasks and
more than occasionally, the tasks they're asked to do we have no control over,
much less, no say in the matter. I'm sure that very few if any get a chance to
tell the application developers how to properly manage the resources they're
using.
These systems were designed to run under a wide range of use-cases and each of
these situations plays an integral roll in establishing the tuning objectives
that are targeted. It is a moving target in some cases and that in and of
itself is a use-case that must be planned for! Swapping and the ability to swap
is *one* of a number of design features that was designed in to allow us to
handle some of those various use-cases.
Simply saying "never swap" or the more prevalent implication of "if you swap
you're not doing your job well and should be put in the stocks and publicly
humiliated" does no one any good and just makes us all look snarky and
unhelpful.
(IMNSHO)
--
<< MCT >> Michael C Tiernan.
Is God a performance artist?
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mtiernan
_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
