On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Daniel Tuijnman wrote:
> > Well ... maybe *in theory* 2.4.16 should work on a machine with that
> > little RAM but I'd say in practice Linux has simply outgrown your
> > machine. Have you tried any other 2.4 kernels, say, before 2.4.10 when
> > the VM changed?
Rubbish, a VM is supposed to improve, not make it impossible to
run programs after an upgrade. Keeping Linux working on low memory
machines is definately a big issue for the VM I'm developing and
I suspect it's near the top of Andrea's list too...
> No I haven't. Was the older VM better, then? Sorry to put it so blunt,
> but if it can't swap out unneeded data, it is broken.
> 2. My first Linux experience was on a P60 with 8MB of memory, 16MB swap.
> I ran X and used TeX on my 300p. Ph.D. thesis, and that ran fine.
> So why should I need more to get less?
Absolutely agreed, the thing should just work.
If you have the time, you could try my latest -rmap patch,
available at:
http://surriel.com/patches/2.4/2.4.17-rmap-11a
I've done some testing with 'mem=9m' (using a rather fat
kernel w/ profiling) and it seems to work decently.
regards,
Rik
--
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
-- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:29 EST