From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [RFC] VM: I have a dream... Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:23:35 +0000 Message-ID: <20060131192335.GA28323@mail.shareable.org> References: <200601301621.24051.a1426z@gawab.com> <8F530CA8-1AC8-4AE5-8F1E-DC6518BD7D42@mac.com> <200601311856.17569.a1426z@gawab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Kyle Moffett , Bryan Henderson , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:25291 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751319AbWAaTX6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:23:58 -0500 To: Al Boldi Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200601311856.17569.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Al Boldi wrote: > There is a lot to gain, for one there is no more swapping w/ all its related > side-effects. You're dealing with memory only. I'm sorry, I think I don't understand. My weakness. Can you please explain? Presumably you will want access to more data than you have RAM, because RAM is still limited to a few GB these days, whereas a typical personal data store is a few 100s of GB. 64-bit architecture doesn't change this mismatch. So how do you propose to avoid swapping to/from a disk, with all the time delays and I/O scheduling algorithms that needs? -- Jamie