> On 10 Mar 1998, Trond Eivind =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Glomsr=F8d?= wrote:
> > Scott Lampert <fortunato@heavymetal.org> writes:
> > > It works for me on my 233MMX, however it seems to be far
> > > less efficient than prior kernels when it comes to memory handling.
> > > It doesn't seem to want to give up much memory from the disk cache,
> > > prefering to stick stuff in swap first.
> >
> > That is my experience as well... I've got 80 MB. It was happy with
> > about 56 MB for caches, 4 MB free and a little less than 20 MB
> > used. Oh - and 75 MB used swap.
>
> You both seem to be ignoring the fact that sticking
> unused stuff in swap is better than freeing disk
> cache pages.
I am of the belief that having almost 60 MB disk cache on a 60
MBworkstation is a bit of an overkill...
> In 2.1.89 we age disk cache pages in
> much the same way we age private (in-swap) pages.
> Because the aging is the same, you can be quite sure
> that Linux is doing the right thing...
>
> (and I haven't heard you about worse performance either)
OK - the performance is worse for me (I thought that was implicit, given
the huge swap) since it spends much time swapping - during which it is
utterly irresponsive.
-- Trond Eivind Glomsrød http://s9412a.steinan.ntnu.no/~teg/ ** teg@pvv.ntnu.no- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu