On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>> The idea is *predictability*. Guarantees of behavior.
>> Your user deamon is fine for many cases, but it's execution is
>> not deterministic.
>
>Please back up your assertions with code. If you can implement
>a non-overcommit option which doesn't put overhead in the normal
>kernel, I'm sure people will use it.
>
>The IRIX vswap argument isn't a really valid one either.
>Almost all IRIX admins I've talked to had their vswap at
>either zero or infinity because otherwise behaviour would
>be too difficult to predict ... exactly the opposite of
>what you are saying here.
That is only when they really don't understand the consequences.
I run systems both with vswap at 0, where I don't want any failures - disk
servers, and at infinity - single user workstations where it doesn't matter,
AND at something in between where I can (or am directed to) tolerate an
ocasional failure.
The vswap operation was put back right after IRIX implemented an uncontroled
overcommitment of memory resources. It took an entire version of IRIX to
get it to work right, but as of now, it is very usefull. SGI lost several
customers during the interim, but I think they started getting them back
after the controls were working (we dropped a power challenge array after
about a year and a half due to various problems that could have been caused by
poor resource control).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II Email: pollard@cats-chateau.net
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 25 2000 - 21:22:06 EST