From: Jakob Østergaard <jakob@unthought.net>
To: Josh Grebe <squash@primary.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about memory usage in 2.4 vs 2.2
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:32:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010320183238.B1508@unthought.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200103190207.UAA13397@senechalle.net> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103201038140.2405-100000@scarface.primary.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103201038140.2405-100000@scarface.primary.net>; from squash@primary.net on Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:01:52AM -0600
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:01:52AM -0600, Josh Grebe wrote:
> Greetings,
...
> Doing the math, the 2.4 machine is using 44% of available memory, while
> the 2.2 is using only about 14%.
How is the performance difference ?
...
> These machines are dual P2-400's, with 512M ECC ram, adaptec 2940, and
> dual intel etherexpress pro 100 cards.
>
> I also tried 2.4.2-ac20 with similar results.
>
> Am I missing something here? I'd really like to move the farm back up to
> 2.4 series.
Free memory is wasted memory. It seemed like 2.4 wasted a lot less memory
than 2.2 on your workload.
Could you do some performance measurements (eg. average latency on IMAP
connection or something like that) ? It would be great to know wheter
2.4 is better or worse than 2.2 (it's most likely better, since it probably
uses the memory better, but it would be nice to know)
--
................................................................
: jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-20 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-19 2:07 /proc/cpuinfo for Intel P4 D850GB asenec
2001-03-19 2:33 ` davej
2001-03-19 3:14 ` 2.4.3-pre4: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 000000fb Shawn Starr
2001-03-19 12:02 ` /proc/cpuinfo for Intel P4 D850GB David Weinehall
2001-03-19 21:58 ` 2.4.3-pre4: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 000000fb Shawn Starr
2001-03-20 17:01 ` Question about memory usage in 2.4 vs 2.2 Josh Grebe
2001-03-20 17:32 ` Jakob Østergaard [this message]
2001-03-20 20:29 ` Josh Grebe
2001-03-21 19:16 ` Jan Harkes
2001-03-21 19:54 ` Rik van Riel
2001-03-20 18:54 ` Jan Harkes
2001-03-20 20:29 ` Josh Grebe
2001-03-20 22:18 ` Rik van Riel
2001-03-20 22:29 ` Juha Saarinen
2001-03-21 9:28 ` Zou Min
2001-03-21 9:51 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-03-21 10:56 ` Zou Min
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-03-21 10:14 Manfred Spraul
2001-03-21 17:42 ` Josh Grebe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010320183238.B1508@unthought.net \
--to=jakob@unthought.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=squash@primary.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox