On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Simon Kirby wrote:If you don't have any swap, or if you run out of swap, the major
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:47:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > And this _is_ a downside, there's no question about it. There's the worry
> > There are always trade-offs, I think the 2.4.x tradeoff is a good one.
> Hmm, perhaps you could clarify...
> For boxes that rarely ever use swap with 2.2, will they now need more
difference between 2.2.x and 2.4.x is probably going to be the oom
handling: I suspect that 2.4.x might be more likely to kill things off
sooner (but it tries to be graceful about which processes to kill).
Not having any swap is going to be a performance issue for both 2.2.x and
If you do have swap, but it's smaller than your available physical RAM, I
> I've always been tending to make swap partitions smaller lately, as itYes, that kind of swap size tuning will still work in 2.4.x, but the sizes
> helps in the case where we have to wait for a runaway process to eat up
> all of the swap space before it gets killed. Making the swap size
> smaller speeds up the time it takes for this to happen, albeit something
> which isn't supposed to happen anyway.
you tune for would be different, I'm afraid. If you have, say, 128MB or
RAM, and you used to make a smallish partition of 64MB for "slop" in
2.2.x, I really suspect that you might like to increase it to 128MB or
Of course, if you really only used your swap for "slop", I don't think
NOTE! The above guide-lines are pure guesses. The machines I use have had
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.