Autotune swappiness01
Perhaps the answer is a CONFIG_USERCONFIG or similar like in the car scenario, those who like to take tools with them to fiddle and those who just like to drive.
-DaMouse
Previous Messages:
Quoted 35 lines · Adam Kropelin
Quoted 29 lines · R. J. Wysocki
Quoted 10 lines · Nick Piggin
Quoted 9 lines · Con Kolivas
Quoted 8 lines · Nick Piggin
Quoted 2 lines · Con Kolivas
In my ideal, nonsensical, impossible to obtain world we have an autoregulating operating system that doesn't need any knobs.
Some thinks are fundamental tradeoffs that can't be autotuned.
Latency vs throughput comes up in a lot of places, eg. timeslices.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Maximum throughput via effective use of swap, versus swapping as a last resort may be another.
As I said... it was ideal, nonsensical, and impossible. Doesn't sound like you're arguing with me.
No, you're right. My ideal operating system knows what the user wants too ;)
Well, what I hate about various computer programs is that they seem to assume to know what I (the USER) want and they don't let me do anything else that they "know" what I should/would do. ;-)
Quoted 4 lines
Most of the time though, you are right. The quality/desirability of an implementation will be inversely proportional to the number of knobs sticking out of it (with bonus points for those that are meaningful to 2 people on the planet).
Quoted 4 lines
Can you please tell me why you think that the least tunable implementation should be the best/most desirable one? I always prefer the most tunable implementations which is quite opposite to what you have said, but this is my personal opinion, of course.
Quoted 5 lines
The implementation with the least *need* for tuning is the most desirable. I, for one, don't care if there are a dozen knobs as long as 99% of users don't have to touch them. But if common usage scenarios require turning knobs to get reasonable performance, the algorithm is lacking.
I agree in 100%.
Quoted 8 lines
Thanks to fuel injection and engine management I can drive from LA to Denver and not need to tweak my carburator half way up the Rockies. I've given up some chances for tuning, but overall I'm better off. If you want to stick a trimpot or ten out the side of the engine management computer so true gearheads can tweak another couple HP or MPG out of the engine, great. But don't expect me to fiddle with it every time driving conditions change; it's not an excuse to make the management algorithms inadequate for common driving patterns.
I didn't mean that. Actually, I was trying to say that an additional "knob" (or "knobs") might be useful in determining the "common settings" acceptable for the 99% of users. Then, it could be "hidden" (which I wouldn't do, but well ...). Yours,
rjw