From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ookhoi Subject: Re: reiser4 and 2.5.60 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:11:36 +0100 Message-ID: <20030218151136.K20771@humilis> References: <20030215160033.A3570@humilis> <20030218121257.A27125@namesys.com> <20030218103151.B19634@humilis> <20030218124236.A31148@namesys.com> <20030218105247.D20771@humilis> <20030218130544.A31947@namesys.com> Reply-To: ookhoi@humilis.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030218130544.A31947@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Oleg Drokin Cc: Ookhoi , reiserfs-list@namesys.com Oleg Drokin wrote (ao): > > > > Sure. It is a P-MMX, 200MHz, with 512MB ram, and a 4GB scsi disk. > > > > > > Hm. That must be real slow, is it? (just because not all of the > > > RAM is covered by L2 cache, I mean. Or do you have some sensible > > > chipset in there?). > > > > It is slow, but I am not aware of issues with too little L2 cache. > > Well, some common chipsets of that time could only cache limited > amounts of RAM (64Mb for TX or VX chipsets, 256Mb for some other > chipsets I dont remember about). > Accesses to RAM regions that are not cached are awfully slow. > But these accesses are still faster than hitting HDD ;) > So the "slram" driver was developed that allowed to use > non-cached memory as a RAM-disk for swap usage. Ah, thanks for the info! > > quick look at dmesg didn't give me more clue. Can you please explain > > a bit, or give some google keywords? > > There is some sensible (from a quick look) article at > http://www.computerwriter.com/archives/1998/cw050798.htm > > > It is only 200MHz, so I expect it to be slow, but if I can make it > > faster that would be nice (without removing the ram if possible ;-) > > Well, try to remove the ram, first to make it to be only 256M then 64M > and see if the system becomes faster at trivial non-memory hungry > stuff. I can boot it with mem=64M. And try to unzip something large a few times. > If this is indeed the case, consider changing motherboard/increasing > L2 cache size (hard to do nowadays, when you cannot buy even P3 > equipment easily ;) ). > Nothing else comes to mind. Owh, never mind, I'll save some money for a new one ..