On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 11:52, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > On 21 Jan 2002, Andrew Ebling wrote: > > > In my opinion, with CPUs getting ever faster plus recent memory > > technology developments that reduce memory access latency, yet hard disk > > access remaining slow (in comparison) it is now worth spending more CPU > > cycles on getting memory management "right". > > That "Gig" CPU of yours won't help you much when your box is thrashing > helplessly, the idea to low overhead is to allow the box to do some work > even under extreme duress. The last thing i'd like to see are the VM gods > targetting large boxen only, from there your average box will suffer > horribly unless under the lightest load. And that is why you would want to try and do as much of the expensive stuff in advance if at all possible. It is a bit late to go looking for some more good candidates (pages) to swap out when the trashing has already started. Isnt a box that is thrashing in an I/O bound state anyway? Surely the CPU is sleeping, waiting for disk operations most of the time? Correct me if I'm wrong. Andy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
