Re: XFS and journalling filesystems

Nickolay Kolchin (snob@snob.spb.ru)
Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:44:49 +0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Scott Lurndal: "RH6 and lilo - kernel too big [mail.linux-kernel]"
Previous message: Gert Doering: "Re: Problems with 2.2.9, EEpro100 and IPv6 (was: Re: 2.2.0-pre9 and still "misbehaviour" with EEpro/"

Втр, 01 Июн 1999, David S. Miller wrote
> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 02:15:17 -0700
> From: Dan Koren <dkoren@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com>
>
> I'm afraid your concerns about kernel code size eating into buffer
> cache or user memory are slightly out of date. These days it seems
> damn near impossible to buy anything with less than 32 MB memory!
>
> There are third world countries where Linux is used heavily where a
> 486 with 16MB of ram is a "big computer". These concerns are by no
> means out of date at all.
>

You don't need XFS on such systems.

------
Intel: where Quality is job number 0.9998782345!
------
Nickolay Semyonov

-
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/

Next message: Scott Lurndal: "RH6 and lilo - kernel too big [mail.linux-kernel]"
Previous message: Gert Doering: "Re: Problems with 2.2.9, EEpro100 and IPv6 (was: Re: 2.2.0-pre9 and still "misbehaviour" with EEpro/"