Fixing the vm or merging rmap into the official tree?
Quoted 14 lines
Fixing the vm or merging rmap into the official tree?
From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk ([email protected])
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 04:55:39 ESTHi all
After weeks of testing, knocking my head against all sorts of objects, trying out other potential OSes etc. etc. ad. infinitum, I got the hint of using the rmap patch to fix my problems with reading multiple large files at once (see prevois thread with subject "[BUG] Error reading multiple large files").
Quoted 5 lines
Will this problem be addressed in 2.4 or perhaps 2.[56] ?
My testing shows that the current vm can't handle high/non-standards load efficiently. Isn't this something that clearly should be addressed?
Just my 2 EURO-ct on this. The VM in 2.4.x mainline is definitely
broken for a lot of loads, especially under high memory stress. This needs to be adressed and fixed ASAP. An I think most people here agree.
Now, the question is what is the correct fix. There is Andreas´s stuff,
which fixes some scenarios. There is Rick's stuff which fixes others. There is even the small few liner patch to vmscan.c by M.v.Leuwen, which fixes/reduces the swapout problem for *my* situation.
But frankly speaking, I personally don't care which solution goes in,
but it should be done quick. Patching up mainline every time just to get decent VM behaviour is unacceptable for serious use.
Quoted 4 lines
roy
--
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, MCSE, MCNE, CLS, LCA
------------------------^^^^^^^^^^
poor guy :-)
Martin
Signature · 5 lines
------------------------------------------------------------------ Martin Knoblauch | email: [email protected] TeraPort GmbH | Phone: +49-89-510857-309 C+ITS | Fax: +49-89-510857-111 http://www.teraport.de | Mobile: +49-170-4904759