On Thursday 03 January 2002 1:02 am, you wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Robert Davies wrote:
> > basically the Linux VM folds under really heavy abuse
>
> This I knew. I've turned off swap for tonight's tests to see if that
> helps. Problem is getting more than 1.5GB of RAM into a machine which
> can't take any more than its already got :)
>
> > which is why they consider a VM similar to FreeBSD's in 2.5/2.6.
>
> Or just like 2.2. I can run said Java program and let it allocate numerous
> GB of memory (said box has 1.5GB RAM and 14.5GB swap - yes I know that's
> a little excessive) on its new 2.2.20 based production server just fine.
Err no thanks, actually the 2.4 AA VM seems at least as good as the 2.2 one,
most thing the kernel VM's never really been right since about 2.0.18. I'm
noticing my system run quite a bit faster now, SuSE 7.3, KDE-2.2.2 and kernel
2.4.10, waiting for a new update SuSE will release soon before going to
2.4.16.
I think in circumstances (I assume you're running Debian), running 2.4.17
would be good idea, it's had quite a lot of fixes go in, and looked like
Marcello was actually serious about testing.
With 1.5GB RAM and 14.5GB I suspect AA would be glad to correspond with you,
if you can break the latest and greatest stable code, which AA claims is
stable.
I forgot to suggest updating your kernel map file when you recompile and
making sure it's in /boot, so that ksymoops can give more sensible
information.
I'm actually a fan of large swaps, in my experience 2.2 needed it to run
really stably, lots of the point releases had issues with the VM if you ran
swap light. 14.5GB *grin* you don't mess about do you :)
Rob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk
http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu 03 Jan 2002 - 13:23:45 GMT