From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:10:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:10:40 -0400 Received: from i1724.vwr.wanadoo.nl ([194.134.214.195]:24448 "HELO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:10:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 19:10:29 +0200 From: Remi Turk To: Alexander Viro Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Break 2.4 VM in five easy steps Message-ID: <20010606191029.B893@localhost.localdomain> Mail-Followup-To: Alexander Viro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20010606112207.H15199@dev.sportingbet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from viro@math.psu.edu on Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 06:48:32AM -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 06:48:32AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote: > > > This is completely bogus. I am not saying that I can't afford the swap. > > What I am saying is that it is completely broken to require this amount > > of swap given the boundaries of efficient use. > > Funny. I can count many ways in which 4.3BSD, SunOS{3,4} and post-4.4 BSD > systems I've used were broken, but I've never thought that swap==2*RAM rule > was one of them. > > Not that being more kind on swap would be a bad thing, but that rule for > amount of swap is pretty common. ISTR similar for (very old) SCO, so it's > not just BSD world. How are modern Missed'em'V variants in that respect, BTW? Although I don't have any swap-trouble myself, what I think most people are having problems with is not that Linux doesn't have the "you-dont-need-2xRAM-size-swap-if-you-swap-at-all feature", but that it lost it in 2.4. -- Linux 2.4.5-ac9 #5 Wed Jun 6 18:30:24 CEST 2001