Re: vm in 2.4.5

2001-05-27 Thread J . A . Magallon
On 05.26 Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2001, J . A . Magallon wrote: > > > It does not begin to use swap in a growing fashion, it just appears > > full in a moment. > > It gets _allocated_ in a moment, but things don't actually get > swapped out. This isn't a problem. > > The real probl

Re: vm in 2.4.5 (fwd)

2001-05-27 Thread Rik van Riel
[Oh, and please don't let UUCP addresses get out] On Sat, 26 May 2001, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote: > Am I right ? No. And not only that, you also snipped the part of my email which explains what is happening. Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's tru

Re: vm in 2.4.5

2001-05-26 Thread Andrzej Krzysztofowicz
> On Sat, 26 May 2001, J . A . Magallon wrote: > > It does not begin to use swap in a growing fashion, it just appears > > full in a moment. > > It gets _allocated_ in a moment, but things don't actually get > swapped out. This isn't a problem. > > The real problem is that we don't actively recl

Re: vm in 2.4.5

2001-05-26 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sat, 26 May 2001, J . A . Magallon wrote: > It does not begin to use swap in a growing fashion, it just appears > full in a moment. It gets _allocated_ in a moment, but things don't actually get swapped out. This isn't a problem. The real problem is that we don't actively reclaim swap space

vm in 2.4.5

2001-05-26 Thread J . A . Magallon
Hi. This is a little experiment to smash 2.4 vm, and there is something I do not understand. Experiment: compile a C file with, say, 100k lines of puts("test"), auto generated. Box is running vanilla 2.4.5, on 256Mb of ram. State before gcc tst.c (just logged in a Gnome session with a couple rx