Re: More info: 2.1.108 page cache performance on low memory

Stephen C. Tweedie
1998-07-23T12:50:58Z

Hi,

On 23 Jul 1998 12:59:38 +0200, Zlatko Calusic <Zlatko.Calusic@CARNet.hr>
said:

> As promised, I did some testing and I maybe have a solution (big
> words, yeah! :)).

> As I see it, page cache seems too persistant (it grows out of bounds)
> when we age pages in it.

Not on 110, it looks. On low memory, .110 seems to be even better than
.108 without the page ageing. It is looking very good right now.

> I can provide thorough benchmark data, if needed.

Please do, but is this on .110?

--Stephen