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 19:10:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 19:10:15 -0400 Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.18]:55818 "EHLO mailout04.sul.t-online.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 19:10:00 -0400 Date: 07 Jun 2001 00:44:00 +0200 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <82PkVOimw-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Break 2.4 VM in five easy steps X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh6 R/C435 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? In-Reply-To: <20010606112207.H15199@dev.sportingbet.com> X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org viro@math.psu.edu (Alexander Viro) wrote on 06.06.01 in : > 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. As a "will break without" rule, I'd consider a kernel with that property completely unsuitable for production use. I certainly don't remember thinking of that as more than a recommendation back when I used commercial Unices (SysVsomething). MfG Kai