Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-06-06 Thread Christian Bornträger
> On a side question: does Linux support swap-files in addition to > sawp-partitions? Even if that has a performance penalty, when the system > is swapping performance is dead anyway. Yes. A possible solution could be: > dd if=/dev/zero of=/swap bs=1M count= > mkswap /swap > swapon /swap Work

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-06-06 Thread Jonathan Morton
> On a side question: does Linux support swap-files in addition to >sawp-partitions? Even if that has a performance penalty, when the system >is swapping performance is dead anyway. Yes. Simply use mkswap and swapon/off on a regular file instead of a partition device. I don't notice any signifi

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-06-06 Thread Alan Cox
> On a side question: does Linux support swap-files in addition to > sawp-partitions? Even if that has a performance penalty, when the system since before 1.0 I believe 8) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-06-05 Thread Martin.Knoblauch
Hi, first of all, I am not complaining, or calling things buggy. I know that what I am running is "work in progress" and that one gets what one deserves :-) 2.4.x has been stable for me and given me no severe problem besides the changed pcmcia/cardbus support somewhere in 2.4.4-acx Just let me

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-06-01 Thread Ken Brownfield
I'd be forced to agree. I have 2.4.x in limited production, and with the exception of the HP/APIC fatal issues that have a "noapic" work-around, I have had no problem at all with any of the 2.4.x kernels I've used. Open software by definition will never reach the kind of monolithic stability

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-06-01 Thread Miquel Colom Piza
This is my first email to the list. I'm not subscribed but I've read it for years. I don't agree with those claiming that 2.4.xx is bad or still beta. We the administrators have the responsability to test early kernels and send good bug reports so the developers can solve the bugs. That's the w

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-06-01 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Marcin Kowalski wrote: > Relating to Huge Dcache and InodeCache Entries and < 2xMem Swap. > I have a server with > 1.1gig of RAM which I have limited to 1gig (due to > stability - BUG at HIGHMEM.c: 155 crashes)... > > The size of the Swap space is 620mb... my memory usage i

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-06-01 Thread Russell Leighton
I have a 2.4.5-ac3 box with 1G RAM and 2.6G Swapfirst time developers hit apache/php/zendcache after reboot and it swapped to a stop. I stop/restarted apache and it seems very happy...can't goto production like this tho :( Alan Cox wrote: > > My system has 128 Meg of Swap and RAM. > > L

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-06-01 Thread David Rees
I don't know myself, (it sounds like other bigmem problems), but setting up a 2GB swap file is easy enough to test. :-) -Dave On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 10:29:39AM +0200, Marcin Kowalski wrote: > > I found this post of interest. I have 1.1 Gig of RAM but only 800mb of > Swap as I expect NOT to us

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-05-31 Thread Christopher Zimmerman
Actually I take everything back. I've been testing on linux-2.4.5-xfs and seen major improvements. -zim Christopher Zimmerman wrote: > Christopher Zimmerman wrote: > > > "Trever L. Adams" wrote: > > > > > In my opinion 2.4.x is NOT ready for primetime. The VM has been getting > > > worse sinc

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-05-31 Thread Christopher Zimmerman
Christopher Zimmerman wrote: > "Trever L. Adams" wrote: > > > In my opinion 2.4.x is NOT ready for primetime. The VM has been getting > > worse since 2.4.0, I believe. Definitely since and including 2.4.3. I > > cannot even edit a few images in gimp where the entire working set used > > to fit

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-05-31 Thread Trever L. Adams
Christopher Zimmerman wrote: > > I've found that with the latest kernel release (2.4.5) VM performance has > been greatly improved. kswapd and bdflush no longer use 200% of my cpu > cycles when simply doing a dd bs=1024 count=8388608 if=/dev/zero > of=test.file. All of my test systems remain r

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-05-31 Thread Christopher Zimmerman
"Trever L. Adams" wrote: > In my opinion 2.4.x is NOT ready for primetime. The VM has been getting > worse since 2.4.0, I believe. Definitely since and including 2.4.3. I > cannot even edit a few images in gimp where the entire working set used > to fit entirely in memory. The system now lock

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-05-31 Thread Alan Cox
> Actually I have tried 1x,2x,3x. In 2.4.0 to 2.4.3 I had some issues but > never a system freeze of any kind. With 2.4.4 I had more problems, but > I was ok. 2.4.5 I now have these freezes. Maybe I should go back to > 2x, but I still find this behavior crazy. > This still doesn't negate th

Re: 2.4.5 VM

2001-05-31 Thread Alan Cox
> My system has 128 Meg of Swap and RAM. Linus 2.4.0 notes are quite clear that you need at least twice RAM of swap with 2.4. Marcelo is working to change that but right now you are running something explicitly explained as not going to work as you want - To unsubscribe from this list: send th