On 18 Jul 1998 19:59:59 GMT, torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds)
said:
> In article <XFMail.980718123733.dbr@oto.dyn.ml.org>,
> David B. Rees <dbr@oto.dyn.ml.org> wrote:
>>
>> This brings up another question... People have noted that 2.1.109 is much
>> better on 8MB machines, but what about 4MB machines? Has anyone tried it?
>> Maybe I'll give it a shot today and post my results...
> I'm actually officially going to suggest that if you have less than 16MB
> RAM on your system, you're probably better off running 2.0.x than 2.2.
For what it's worth, 2.1.110 with the fragmentation patch is running
about as happily as 2.0 on 8MB here. There's certainly a little less
available memory, due to the larger non-pageable stacks and the overhead
of all of the new code and dcaching, but it's not an enormous penalty
with 8MB and it finally seems to be stable.
> Linux 1.0 used to run in 2MB (not well, but it ran), 1.2 already pretty
> much required 4MB, 2.2 will pretty much require 8MB and 16MB preferred.
For what it's worth, I've just been running an X server on 2.1.110 with
4MB ram (in which we start off with 417 out of 1024 pages reserved!!),
and although it is certainly not fast it is running well enough to be
usable.
--Stephen
-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html