>> On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:38:39PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > > > "Is this something that normal people would ever really care deeply
>> > > > about?"
>> > >
>> > > Probably, if there are people other than me that are still using systems
>> > > with 16mb of physical RAM. There probably are some. Maybe.
>>
>> I, for one, have a box with 16M of RAM.
> I have a number with 8M, a couple with 16M, and one with 4M.
>> > On 32Mb 2.2.0pre9 works ok but not well [1] - I can build a kernel without
>> > much swapping while doing other stuff, on 2.1.132 I can build two
>> > kernels in parallel with the same kind of feel while 2.2.0x chokes up
>> > horribly at this point.
>> >
>> > [1] It still beats 2.0.x I should point out 8)
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8Mb 2.2.0pre6, pre8, pre9 are basically unusable while 2.1.132 was fine
>> >
>>
>> Ye gods. If that's the case, 2.2.0 sure ain't going on my 386 with 6M of RAM
>> (which is all I have at the moment, but that's a long story).
> I also find this very distressing as two of my routers have 8M of ram
> while another has 4M, and both perform fairly well while doing any number of
> things. My secondary name server and secondary mail server also has 8M of ram.
> If this can't be changed for 2.2.0 (Anyone know what's causing it?),
> perhaps in 2.2.1?
Neither in 2.2.0 nor in 2.2.1. Use 2.0.37 :-))
> Or maybe some option ("low mem?") that will turn off memory hogs and go back
> to prior slower but less memory eating routines? If this is possible?
No. Problems with 8-16Mb could be resolved (and I hope will be resolved -- may
be some 2.2.x will work with 8Mb even better then 2.0.x -- wild dream, I know)
but 4Mb is "no way". The whole design of a lot of subsystems was changed and
thus there are no chances to get "normal" work on 4Mb systems.
-
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/