* Fixing the vm or merging rmap into the official tree?
@ 2002-01-10 9:55 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk @ 2002-01-10 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Hi all
After weeks of testing, knocking my head against all sorts of objects,
trying out other potential OSes etc. etc. ad. infinitum, I got the hint of
using the rmap patch to fix my problems with reading multiple large files
at once (see prevois thread with subject "[BUG] Error reading multiple
large files").
Will this problem be addressed in 2.4 or perhaps 2.[56] ?
My testing shows that the current vm can't handle high/non-standards load
efficiently. Isn't this something that clearly should be addressed?
roy
--
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, MCSE, MCNE, CLS, LCA
Computers are like air conditioners.
They stop working when you open Windows.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Fixing the vm or merging rmap into the official tree?
@ 2002-01-11 13:48 Martin Knoblauch
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Martin Knoblauch @ 2002-01-11 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; +Cc: roy
> Fixing the vm or merging rmap into the official tree?
>
> From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (roy@karlsbakk.net)
> Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 04:55:39 EST
>
>
> Hi all
>
> After weeks of testing, knocking my head against all sorts of objects,
> trying out other potential OSes etc. etc. ad. infinitum, I got the hint of
> using the rmap patch to fix my problems with reading multiple large files
> at once (see prevois thread with subject "[BUG] Error reading multiple
> large files").
>
> Will this problem be addressed in 2.4 or perhaps 2.[56] ?
>
> My testing shows that the current vm can't handle high/non-standards load
> efficiently. Isn't this something that clearly should be addressed?
>
Just my 2 EURO-ct on this. The VM in 2.4.x mainline is definitely
broken for a lot of loads, especially under high memory stress. This
needs to be adressed and fixed ASAP. An I think most people here agree.
Now, the question is what is the correct fix. There is Andreas´s stuff,
which fixes some scenarios. There is Rick's stuff which fixes others.
There is even the small few liner patch to vmscan.c by M.v.Leuwen, which
fixes/reduces the swapout problem for *my* situation.
But frankly speaking, I personally don't care which solution goes in,
but it should be done quick. Patching up mainline every time just to get
decent VM behaviour is unacceptable for serious use.
> roy
>
> --
> Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, MCSE, MCNE, CLS, LCA
------------------------^^^^^^^^^^
poor guy :-)
Martin
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Knoblauch | email: Martin.Knoblauch@TeraPort.de
TeraPort GmbH | Phone: +49-89-510857-309
C+ITS | Fax: +49-89-510857-111
http://www.teraport.de | Mobile: +49-170-4904759
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-01-11 15:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-01-11 13:48 Fixing the vm or merging rmap into the official tree? Martin Knoblauch
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-01-10 9:55 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox