Re: Swap maximum size documented ?

[Bill Davidsen]

Lennart Sorensen wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:54:51PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>  
>
> > Linux does not entail subscription to hardware upgrade treadmills. No
> > one should be forced by "peer pressure" or Linux deficiencies to buy
> > new hardware. And this is the single greatest thing about Linux ever.
> >    
>
> Sure, I still use a 486 with linux for some jobs, but I am realistic
> about what I can expect from that level of hardware.
>
>  
>
> > O_LARGEFILE and current mmap() code will save him the cost of newer
> > hardware for the near term, and should he be particularly strapped for
> > cash later on when more than 16TB is needed, he knows to look at making
> > pgoff_t and/or swp_entry_t 64-bit on his own. There is no need for new
> > hardware, merely a choice between money and programming effort should
> > he break the 16TB barrier.
> >    
>
> True, although I would think anyone doing actual work on that kind of
> data size would be using fairly new hardware anyhow.
>
> If you have to write all sorts of complex algorithms to work around a
> limitation in your current hardware, perhaps it is cheaper to buy newer
> hardware without that limitation.  Ofcourse if you are working on things
> in your spare time for free, then hardware upgrades are always the most
> expensive solution.

I suspect that the company would like to depreciate 30+ 4-way Xeon 
rackmount systems over a little longer than two years. The actual 
limiting factor is probably not money but getting the corporate 
configuration committee to go 64 bit...

Thanks for all the input.

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
 CTO TMR Associates, Inc
 Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/