>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Galbraith <mikeg@weiden.de> writes:
Mike> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Kees Bakker wrote:
>> With test1-ac17 I still have very bad performance, because kswapd eats
>> almost all of the CPU cycles. The bare test1 was a little better, but not
>> much.
Mike> Hmm, plain test1 gives MUCH (>100%) better performance here (128mb.. not
Mike> tested under ram-impoverished config) Have you tried 99-pre5 on this box?..
Mike> pre5 was the last kernel which gave me nice all-around (vm) preformance.
No I haven't tried 99-pre5. 2.4.0-test is the first kernel I tried on this
machine. Kswapd uses about 86-90% CPU. Then I grabbed ac17, but now kswapd
takes even more CPU.
And believe it or not with 2.4.0-test1 I went through the whole process of
installing something workable on a 32Mb partition, 32 Mb swap space. It
took me a few days ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
voice: +31 33 455 85 84 Tasking Software BV
fax: +31 33 455 10 05 P.O. Box 899
email: kees_bakker@tasking.com 3800 AW Amersfoort
WWW: http://www.tasking.com The Netherlands
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Quality Development Tools Worldwide -----
-----------------------------------
Reality is just another illusion.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 21:00:11 EST