On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 02:02:57AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Tom Duerbusch wrote: > > > My take on multiple images is two fold. > > > > But first, the disclaimer: > > This assumes you have sufficient resources in the first place to do > > this (normally real memory). > > > > 1. I don't know this to be true with Linux, but the Unix types have > > always been leary of having multiple applications running on the same > > box. First, they say that they can't guarentee performance, then they > > start talking about an application corrupting the memory of another > > application. So, one application per box if you want reliability. I > > haven't had the experience of memory problems in Linux, yet, so I still > > tend to believe this. > > Linux doesn't handle memory very well. My Athlon has 512 Mbytes of RAM, > and most of the time it works really well. However, I sometimes copy > large - 600 Mbytes or more - files, either from disk to disk or across > the LAN. When that happens, RAM gets filled with this data and > performance is really bad for a while, even when the file processing is > over.
I've had this problem with 2.4.18 on a fast-enough machine. I noticed it when I upgraded my RH7.3 (with stock kernel) from P3-something to P4-something . Soddenly moving a lot of data to/from the disk became made the whole machine much less responsive. Even after I switched dma on. An upgrade to a more recent kernel did the trick for me. I've heard some others complain of the same problem with the same kernel version. -- Tzafrir Cohen +---------------------------+ http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir/ |vim is a mutt's best friend| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +---------------------------+
