-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:04:45PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Maciej Zenczykowski wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > > That modulo is likely slower than dereference.
> > >
> > > > + if (coun
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Maciej Zenczykowski wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > That modulo is likely slower than dereference.
> >
> > > + if (count % 256 == 0) {
>
> You are forgetting that this case should be converted to and 255
> or a plain byte reference by any o
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Pavel Machek wrote:
> That modulo is likely slower than dereference.
>
> > + if (count % 256 == 0) {
You are forgetting that this case should be converted to and 255 or a
plain byte reference by any optimizing compiler - and gcc surely is,
on x86 this code can b
Hi!
> If this solves your problem, use it; if your name is Linus or Alan,
> ignore or do it right please.
Well I guess you should do CONDITIONAL_SCHEDULE (if it is not defined
as macro, do if (current->need_resched) schedule()).
That modulo is likely slower than dereference.
> diff -u -r1.1 -r
Hi!
> But if the page in memory is 'dirty', you can't be efficient with swapping
> *in* the page. The page on disk is invalid and should be released, or am I
> missing something?
Yes. You are missing fragmentation. This keeps it low.
>I realize that assembly is platform-specific. Being
>that I use the IA32 class machine, that's what I
>would write for. Others who use other platforms could
>do the deed for their native language.
Meaning we'd still need a good C implementation anyway
for the 75% of platforms nobody's going to
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Why are half the people here trying to hide behind this diskspace
>> is cheap argument? If we rely on that, then Linux sucks shit.
>
>Never mind them, I haven't seen any of them contribute
>VM code, even ;)
Nor have I, but I think you guys working on i
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> Why are half the people here trying to hide behind this diskspace
> is cheap argument? If we rely on that, then Linux sucks shit.
Never mind them, I haven't seen any of them contribute
VM code, even ;)
OTOH, disk space _is_ cheap, so the other VM - p
On 6 Jun 2001, 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
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Derek Glidden wrote:
> Or are you saying that if someone is unhappy with a particular
> situation, they should just keep their mouth shut and accept it?
There are lots of options ...
1) wait until somebody fixes the problem
2) fix the problem yourself
3) start infinite flame
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
> A working VM would have several differences from what we have in my
> opinion, among which are:
> - It wouldn't require 8GB of swap on my large boxes
> - It wouldn't suffer from the "bounce buffer" bug on my
> large boxes
>
On 6 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
>> Precicely. Saying 8x RAM doesn't change it either. Sometime
>> next week I'm going to purposefully put a new 60Gb disk in on a
>> separate controller as pure swap on top of 256Mb of RAM. My
>> guess is after bootup, and login, I'll have 48Gb of stuff in
>> s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 03:38:35PM -0600, Brian D Heaton wrote:
> Maybe i'm missing something. I just tried this (with the 262144k/1
> and 128k/2048 params) and my results are within .1s of each other. This is
> without any special patches. A
In my everyday desktop workstation (PII 350) I have 64MB of RAM and use 300MB of
swap, 150MB on
each hard disk. After upgrading to 2.4, and maintaining the same set of applications
(KDE, Netscape
& friends), the machine performance is _definitely_ much worse, in terms of
responsiveness and
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Shane Nay wrote:
> On Thursday 07 June 2001 13:00, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Shane Nay wrote:
> > > (Oh, BTW, I really appreciate the work that people have done on the VM,
> > > but folks that are just talking..., well, think clearly before you impact
>
"Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
> LA Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Now for whatever reason, since 2.4, I consistently use at least
> > a few Mb of swap -- stands at 5Meg now. Weird -- but I notice things
> > like nscd running 7 copies that take 72M. Seems like overkill for
> > a laptop
Uh, last I checked on my linux based embedded device I didn't want to swap to
flash. Hmm.., now why was that..., oh, that's right, it's *much* more
expensive than memory, oh yes, and it actually gets FRIED when you write to a
block more than 100k times. Oh, what was that other thing..., oh ye
On Thursday 07 June 2001 13:00, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Shane Nay wrote:
> > (Oh, BTW, I really appreciate the work that people have done on the VM,
> > but folks that are just talking..., well, think clearly before you impact
> > other people that are writing code.)
>
> If al
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Shane Nay wrote:
> (Oh, BTW, I really appreciate the work that people have done on the VM, but
> folks that are just talking..., well, think clearly before you impact other
> people that are writing code.)
If all the people talking were reporting results we would be reall
On 07 Jun 2001 11:49:47 -0400, Derek Glidden wrote:
> 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
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On 6 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > If you could confirm this by calling swapoff sometime other than at
> > > > reboot time. That might help. Say by running top on the console.
> > >
On Thursday, 07 June 2001, at 09:23:42 +0200,
Helge Hafting wrote:
> Derek Glidden wrote:
> >
> > Helge Hafting wrote:
> [...]
> The machine froze 10 seconds or so at the end of the minute, I can
> imagine that biting with bigger swap.
>
Same behavior here with a Pentium III 600, 128 MB RAM and
Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A problem with this is that normal paging-in is allowed to page other
> things out as well. But you can't have that when swap is about to
> be turned off. My guess is that swapoff functionality was perceived to
> be so seldom used that they didn't bot
LA Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now for whatever reason, since 2.4, I consistently use at least
> a few Mb of swap -- stands at 5Meg now. Weird -- but I notice things
> like nscd running 7 copies that take 72M. Seems like overkill for
> a laptop.
So the question becomes why you are
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 a
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Bulent Abali wrote:
> I happened to saw this one with debugger attached serial port.
> The system was alive. I think I was watching the free page count and
> it was decreasing very slowly may be couple pages per second. Bigger
> the swap usage longer it takes to do swapoff.
"Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
> There are cetain scenario's where you can't avoid virtual mem =
> min(RAM,swap). Which is what I was trying to say, (bad formula). What
> happens is that pages get referenced evenly enough and quickly enough
> that you simply cannot reuse the on disk pages. Basical
>> O.k. I think I'm ready to nominate the dead swap pages for the big
>> 2.4.x VM bug award. So we are burning cpu cycles in sys_swapoff
>> instead of being IO bound? Just wanting to understand this the cheap
way :)
>
>There's no IO being done whatsoever (that I can see with only a blinky).
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
First things first: 1) Please Cc: me when responding, 2) apologies for
dropping any References: headers, 3) sorry for bad formatting
"Jeffrey W. Baker" wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Derek Glidden w
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> No - I suspect that we're not actually doing all that much IO at all, and
> the real reason for the lock-up is just that the current algorithm is so
> bad that when it starts to act exponentially worse it re
On 7 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 7 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > > Does this improve the swapoff speed or just allow other programs to
> > > run at the same time? If it is still slow under that kind of load it
> > > would
On 7 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) writes:
> >
> > Somebody interested in trying the above add? And looking for other more
> > obvious bandaid fixes. It won't "fix" swapoff per se, but it might make
> > it bearable and bring it to the 2.2.x levels.
>
Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > Does this improve the swapoff speed or just allow other programs to
> > run at the same time? If it is still slow under that kind of load it
> > would be interesting to know what is taking up all time.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) writes:
>
> Somebody interested in trying the above add? And looking for other more
> obvious bandaid fixes. It won't "fix" swapoff per se, but it might make
> it bearable and bring it to the 2.2.x levels.
At little bit. The one really bad behavior of not le
On 7 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 6 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > > Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > > If you could confirm this by calling swapoff sometime other than at
> > > > > reboot time. That
Derek Glidden wrote:
>
> 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.
Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > If you could confirm this by calling swapoff sometime other than at
> > > > reboot time. That might help. Say by running top on the console.
> > >
>
LA Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
>
> > The hard rule will always be that to cover all pathological cases swap
> > must be greater than RAM. Because in the worse case all RAM will be
> > in thes swap cache. That this is more than just the worse case in 2.4
> > i
On 6 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > If you could confirm this by calling swapoff sometime other than at
> > > reboot time. That might help. Say by running top on the console.
> >
> > The thing goes comatose here too. SCHED_RR vmstat doesn
On 06 Jun 2001 20:34:49 -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Derek Glidden wrote:
>
> >> 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 m
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Derek Glidden wrote:
>> 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 yo
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, android wrote:
>associated with that mindset that made Microsoft such a [fill in the blank].
>As for the 2.4 VM problem, what are you doing with your machine that's
>making it use up so much memory? I have several processes running
>on mine all the time, including a slew in X,
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Dr S.M. Huen wrote:
>> For large memory boxes, this is ridiculous. Should I have 8GB of swap?
>>
>
>Do I understand you correctly?
>ECC grade SDRAM for your 8GB server costs £335 per GB as 512MB sticks even
>at today's silly prices (Crucial). Ultra160 SCSI costs £8.93/GB as 7
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) wrote on 06.06.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
>
> > This is completely bogus. I am not saying that I can't afford the swap.
> > What I am saying is that it is completely broken to require this amount
> > of swap given the b
At 11:27 pm +0100 6/6/2001, android wrote:
>> >I'd be happy to write a new routine in assembly
>>
>>I sincerely hope you're joking.
>>
>>It's the algorithm that needs fixing, not the implementation of that
>>algorithm. Writing in assembler? Hope you're proficient at writing in
>>x86, PPC, 68k, M
On 06 Jun 2001 15:27:57 -0700, android wrote:
> >I sincerely hope you're joking.
>
> I realize that assembly is platform-specific. Being that I use the IA32 class
> machine, that's what I would write for. Others who use other platforms could
> do the deed for their native language.
no, look at th
hi,
I have a problem with kswapd, it takes suddenly 98 % CPU and crash my server
I dono why, I have a linux kernel 2.2.17 debian distro if anyone can help me
... thx ;)
Antoine
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED
> >I'd be happy to write a new routine in assembly
>
>I sincerely hope you're joking.
>
>It's the algorithm that needs fixing, not the implementation of that
>algorithm. Writing in assembler? Hope you're proficient at writing in
>x86, PPC, 68k, MIPS (several varieties), ARM, SPARC, and whatever
>I'd be happy to write a new routine in assembly
I sincerely hope you're joking.
It's the algorithm that needs fixing, not the implementation of that
algorithm. Writing in assembler? Hope you're proficient at writing in
x86, PPC, 68k, MIPS (several varieties), ARM, SPARC, and whatever other
ar
"Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
> The hard rule will always be that to cover all pathological cases swap
> must be greater than RAM. Because in the worse case all RAM will be
> in thes swap cache. That this is more than just the worse case in 2.4
> is problematic. I.e. In the worst case:
> Virtual
>Is anybody interested in making "swapoff()" better? Please speak up..
>
> Linus
I'd be happy to write a new routine in assembly, if I had a clue as to how
the VM algorithm works in Linux. What should swapoff do if all physical
memory is in use? How does the swapping algorithm b
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Derek Glidden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>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.
Now, this may well be true, but what you actual
On Wednesday 06 June 2001 20:27, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> The hard rule will always be that to cover all pathological cases
> swap must be greater than RAM. Because in the worse case all RAM
> will be in thes swap cache.
Could you explain in very simple terms how the worst case comes about?
-
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 kee
Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6 Jun 2001, 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
> > >
"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
On 6 Jun 2001, 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 handle
>Furthermore, I am not demanding anything, much less "priority fixing"
>for this bug. Its my personal opinion that this is the most critical bug
>in the 2.4 series, and if I had the time and skill, this is what I would
>be working on. Because I don't have the time and skill, I am perfectly
>happy
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Derek Glidden wrote:
> 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.
...
Hi,
Can you try the patch below to see if it helps? If you watch
with vms
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 gracefully.
>
The inte
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001, Dr S.M. Huen wrote:
> The whole screaming match is about whether a drastic degradation on using
> swap with less than the 2*RAM swap specified by the developers should lead
> one to conclude that a kernel is "broken".
I would argue that any system that performs substantially
"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
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:57:57AM +0100, Dr S.M. Huen wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > For large memory boxes, this is ridiculous. Should I have 8GB of swap?
> > >
> >
> > Do I understand you correctly?
> > ECC grade
Derek Glidden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
On Wednesday, 06 June 2001, at 10:19:30 +0200,
Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On 05 Jun 2001 23:19:08 -0400, Derek Glidden wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 12:16:30PM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> [...]
> Did you try to put twice as much swap as you have RAM ? (e.g. add a 512M
> swapfile to your box)
>
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:57:57AM +0100, Dr S.M. Huen wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
>
> >
> > For large memory boxes, this is ridiculous. Should I have 8GB of swap?
> >
>
> Do I understand you correctly?
> ECC grade SDRAM for your 8GB server costs £335 per GB as 512MB stick
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 06:48:32AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
>
> > This is completely bogus. I am not saying that I can't afford the swap.
> > What I am saying is that it is completely broken to require this amount
> > of swap given the boundaries of ef
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
>
> > This is completely bogus. I am not saying that I can't afford the swap.
> > What I am saying is that it is completely broken to require this amount
> > of swap given the boundaries of efficient use.
>
> Funny
On 6 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Derek Glidden wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Dr S.M. Huen wrote:
> If you can afford 4GB RAM, you certainly can afford 8GB swap.
this is a completely crap argument.
you should study the economics of managing a farm of thousands of machines
some day.
when you do this, you'll also learn to consider the power requirement
Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> Daniel Phillips writes:
> > On Wednesday 06 June 2001 10:54, Sean Hunter 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
> > >
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 reporte
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 actual people really and
OK, Linus said if I use swap it should be at least twice as much as RAM.
there will be much more discussion about it, for me this contraint is a very
very bad idea.
Have you ever thought about diskless workstations? Swapping over a network
sounds ugly.
Nevertheless, my question is:
what happens
> 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
Daniel Phillips writes:
> On Wednesday 06 June 2001 10:54, Sean Hunter 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 go
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
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Yes. The sys_swapoff() system call can take many minutes
> Haven't looked at it closely, but I think the algorithm
> could become something like:
>
> for (each process) {
> for (each page in this process) {
> if
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 b
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 ca
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
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001, Derek Glidden did have cause to say:
> > The swapoff algorithms in 2.2 and 2.4 are basically identical.
> > The problem *appears* worse in 2.4 because it uses lots
> > more swap.
>
> I disagree with the terminology you're using. It *is* worse in 2.4,
> period. If it only *
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "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 uses lots
"Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Derek Glidden wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
>> > 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 you ju
On Wednesday 06 June 2001 10:54, Sean Hunter 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
> >
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
> This is completely bogus. I am not saying that I can't afford the swap.
> What I am saying is that it is completely broken to require this amount
> of swap given the boundaries of efficient use.
Funny. I can count many ways in which 4.3BSD, SunOS{3,4}
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:57:57AM +0100, Dr S.M. Huen wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
>
> >
> > For large memory boxes, this is ridiculous. Should I have 8GB of swap?
> >
>
> Do I understand you correctly?
> ECC grade SDRAM for your 8GB server costs £335 per GB as 512MB stick
Vivek Dasmohapatra wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Dr S.M. Huen wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > For large memory boxes, this is ridiculous. Should I have 8GB of swap?
> > >
> >
> > Do I understand you correctly?
> > ECC grade SDRAM for your 8GB server costs £3
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Dr S.M. Huen wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
>
> >
> > For large memory boxes, this is ridiculous. Should I have 8GB of swap?
> >
>
> Do I understand you correctly?
> ECC grade SDRAM for your 8GB server costs £335 per GB as 512MB sticks even
> at today's s
"Add more of this then".
Best regards
Antonio Covelli
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dr S.M. Huen
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:58 AM
> To: Sean Hunter
> Cc: Xavier Bestel; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I am waiting patiently for the bug to be fixed. However, it is a real
>embarrasment that we can't run this "stable" kernel in production yet
>because somethign as fundamental as this is so badly broken.
Rest assured that a fix is in the works. I'm already seeing a big
improvement in behaviour o
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
>
> For large memory boxes, this is ridiculous. Should I have 8GB of swap?
>
Do I understand you correctly?
ECC grade SDRAM for your 8GB server costs £335 per GB as 512MB sticks even
at today's silly prices (Crucial). Ultra160 SCSI costs £8.93/GB as 73GB
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 11:16:27AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On 06 Jun 2001 09:54:31 +0100, Sean Hunter wrote:
> > > 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 you
On 06 Jun 2001 09:54:31 +0100, Sean Hunter wrote:
> > 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 you just have enough swap to map
> > your RAM, and nothing to re
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:19:30AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On 05 Jun 2001 23:19:08 -0400, Derek Glidden wrote:
> > 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
On 05 Jun 2001 23:19:08 -0400, Derek Glidden wrote:
> 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
>It seems bizarre that a 4GB machine with a working set _far_ lower than that
>should be dying from OOM and swapping itself to death, but that's life in 2.4
>land.
I posted a fix for the OOM problem long ago, and it didn't get integrated
(even after I sent Alan a separated-out version from the la
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 09:42:26PM -0400, Russell Leighton wrote:
>
> I also need some 2.4 features and can't really goto 2.2.
> I would have to agree that the VM is too broken for production...looking
> forward to the work that (hopefully) will be in 2.4.6 to resolve these issues.
>
Boring to
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, 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 uses lots
>
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
