Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:21:23 +0200 | From | "Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" <> | Subject | Re: [OT] No Swap. Re: [BUG 2.6.90-test5] kernel shits itself with 48mb ram under moderate load |
| |
Mikulas Patocka wrote: >>>Oh, it does matter. My workstation has 1 GB RAM and 2 GB swap and I hardly >>>see any problems with paging <g>. >> >> Because your workload doesn't hit the 1GB limit. >> Actually we just do not have fast enough I/O + CPU to utilize 1GB of >>RAM efficiently. >> >> But if you will go into 128MB of RAM - you will see difference, where >>should be no difference. >> >> Let's say (my personal exp.) cp'ing of kernel source with 0.5/0.25 GB >>RAM dosn't differ. Aproximately the same time. 0.25GB little bit faster >>- but it can be written off to noise. But try to do the same cp with >>0.125GB - this cp (as of RH 2.4.20-20.9 +ext3 -swap) takes _*two*_ times >>longer. Should it be? > > Yes, it should. If you have 0.25GB, it can be copied into cache. If you > have 0.125GB, it doesn't fit there. >
So you want to say to effectively copy (or whatever) 40GB harddrive I have to have 40GB of RAM? Ridiculous. Especially if copying is done in 4k lumps. (cp's default buffer)
<sarcasm flavour=sad> Hopefully not everyone shares your opinion. </sarcasm>
-- Ihar 'Philips' Filipau / with best regards from Saarbruecken. -- "... and for $64000 question, could you get yourself vaguely familiar with the notion of on-topic posting?" -- Al Viro @ LKML
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |