On Tuesday 08 March 2005 12:52, nils toedtmann wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 06:30:55PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 March 2005 02:17, nils toedtmann wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:35:23PM -0800, Jim Carter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Maarten wrote:
> > > > > Out
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 18:26, Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 March 2005 16:04, Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
> >> I am wondering what are the memory limits for a single UML guest
> >> kernel of 2.6.9-bs7? We are running to some sort of problem just
> >> below 5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 March 2005 16:04, Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
>> I am wondering what are the memory limits for a single UML guest
>> kernel of 2.6.9-bs7? We are running to some sort of problem just
>> below 500 megabytes already.
>
> Hmm, in both 2.6.9-bs7 and 2.6.11 the limi
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 23:24, Jason Lunz wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Try using the UML tree downloaded from my homepage (the -bs7 patchset
> > against 2.6.9) and it should solve the thousands of shells problem (it's
> > normal they are started, the problem is that don't die with SIGKILL,
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 16:04, Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
> I am wondering what are the memory limits for a single UML guest
> kernel of 2.6.9-bs7? We are running to some sort of problem just below
> 500 megabytes already.
Hmm, in both 2.6.9-bs7 and 2.6.11 the limit is at least 768M, and it extends
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 13:12, Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
> Dave Pearson wrote:
> > Are there any plans to get the SKAS patches merged into the kernel
> > at some point? Although the current 'find a suitable skas patch at
> > sourceforge/blaisorblade/tuxrocks' search when a new kernel comes
> > out
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 05:28, Jim Carter wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Krisztian PIFKO wrote:
> > could someone please tell me how much memory an uml consumes
> > if the temp dir for the unlinked temp files is on tmpfs?
> >
The rest of your answer, Jim, is ok.
> I imagine that the 31 MB difference
On Sunday 06 March 2005 07:01, Jeff Dike wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Is this like it is implemented now?
>
> Yup. In both the AIO and non-AIO case, there is a separate thread to which
> you send IO requests, and at some later point, UML gets interrupted with
> the results.
To answer anoth
We have currently a problem with SLIP support in userspace, which is going to
force for SLIP users the upgrade to newer uml_utilities and newer UMLs (the
patch is very simple and applies unchanged to 2.4 and 2.6 UMLs, at least for
decently recent versions).
So I want to get a feeling of how man
On Sunday 06 March 2005 21:34, Krisztian PIFKO wrote:
> hi,
>
> could someone please tell me how much memory an uml consumes
> if the temp dir for the unlinked temp files is on tmpfs?
>
> for example does a 64M uml use 2*64 megs of ram this way?
No, just 64M... at least, this is what I remember fro
I am wondering what are the memory limits for a single UML guest
kernel of 2.6.9-bs7? We are running to some sort of problem just below
500 megabytes already. What is the 2G/2G address space split? What
kind of host patches does that require and what are the effects?
I could not find any HIGHMEM s
Dave Pearson wrote:
> Are there any plans to get the SKAS patches merged into the kernel
> at some point? Although the current 'find a suitable skas patch at
> sourceforge/blaisorblade/tuxrocks' search when a new kernel comes
> out is charming, it would be even better if there was a 'SKAS Mode'
> c
12 matches
Mail list logo
