Re: [OT] No Swap. Re: [BUG 2.6.90-test5] kernel shits itself with 48mb ram under moderate load

["Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" <filia@softhome.net>]

Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
>>>
>>>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.
> 
> Other unices (Solaris, IRIX) don't have dynamic cache that resizes
> according to RAM, always copy data from disk to disk and so they are

   It is slow. But when someone compile something on our Linux cross 
compilation server - everyone else is out - "jerky" is not suffieciently 
hard word to describe how it works under load. (I hope 2.6 fixes this.)

   Sun Ultra 10 (Solaris 8) is magnitude slower, but when someone 
compiles something big - people still _*can*_ work on it. "find | xargs 
grep" is still ok. I notice usually background compilations by fact that 
:w takes visibly longer. But I can work.

   That's what matters. Try to work in vim if it is permanently get 
swaped out. _*Very*_ _*very*_ not nice.
   And there is no memory pressure - kernel just decided to enlarge I/O 
cache... 100% stupid.

   I personally prefer to have statical I/O cache - never saw it working 
reliably with dynamic allocation.

> order-of-magnitude slower than Linux. Did you ever tried to grep for
> symbols in linux source tree unpacked on Solaris box with 512MB RAM? ---
> it's just as slow as linux with very few RAM, because Solaris can't cache
> data in RAM.
> 

-- 
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