On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Robert Davies wrote:
> Err no thanks, actually the 2.4 AA VM seems at least as good as the 2.2 one
For the benefit of readers who don't follow lkml (Linux Kernel Mailing
List) but who are interested in this discussion (:P), AA is Andrea
Arcangeli and I was going to provide a link to the FAQ (
URL:http://www.tux.org/lkml/ ) but AA is not explained in there yet...
there's a whole lotta history there too between Linus, Alan and friends.
> 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.
OK, it's running 2.4.17 as of lunchtime today (bloody annoying RAID
drivers decided to resync a supposedly clean array just to ruin my lunch).
> 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
That box is currently running with about 3GB swap, the 14.5GB is installed
in another box running 2.2 which I mentioned before - though I'd like to
upgrade that other box to 2.4 if it can be proven stable enough.
> 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.
Yes, but you didn't need to :)
> 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 :)
You think that's a lot? :P There's more of those dotted about here, mostly
for very very large java programs that prefer to allocate all the memory.
--jcm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 - 13:40:35 GMT