Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Aug 2006 03:33:25 +0200 | From | Andre Tomt <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core |
| |
Rik van Riel wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > >> - We expect that the lots-of-dirty-anon-memory-over-swap-over-network >> scenario might still cause deadlocks. >> I assert that this can be solved by putting swap on local disks. >> Peter >> asserts that this isn't acceptable due to disk unreliability. I point >> out that local disk reliability can be increased via MD, all goes >> quiet. >> >> A good exposition which helps us to understand whether and why a >> significant proportion of the target user base still wishes to do >> swap-over-network would be useful. > > You cannot put disks in many models of blade servers. > > At all.
Or many thin clients in general. They are used in quite a few schools over here, running Linux. Some of them do in fact have space for disks, but disks adds costs (heat, power, replacing failed drives) - 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/
| |