On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, root wrote:
> In article <199812210952.DAA27240@babushka.cs.utexas.edu> you wrote:
> > Compressed VM has been tried before, and gave mixed results, but=20
> > technology trends make it a much better deal now, and getting
> > better all the time.
> [rest snipped]
>
> I see some minor issues with what I think you mean:
>
> 1) Programs _never_ enter the swap. (At least ELF-executables) So there
> is nothing to win here, unless you want to _write_ an executable to disk
> first before reading it (which effectively gains probably nothing)
Because they are MMAPped, right?
Hmm, this makes me wonder if we could make a compressed-ELF, which is
decompressed by the page-in code?
> 3) For swapping over the network: A compressed network-protocol would gain
> MUCH more, not only swapping but for normal traffic also.
CTCP/CIP? CUDP? ;)
> 4) In your timings, you assume there is one physical disk. If there are
> more, Linux spreads the load amoung them and is able to achieve much
> higher bandwidths.
> 5) Reserving a fixed piece of memory loses the flexibility the current
> kernel has in splitting the "spare" memory amoung cache/data/programs=20
> in an optimal way
I'd be interesting to see compression patches and do some benchmarks
myself anyway, esp the network-compression.
> Greetings,
> Arjan van de Ven
>
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
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/