> I try to maintain some recognition of weaknesses (no one system is > ever good at _everything_). Working w/ Xenix (and Unix, early on) > one of the tunables was to set the buffer cache size. While the new > model of buffer cache management is wonderful for "regular" (non- > shared) systems, it's not as good in the VM environment (though we > wouldn't want to cripple this feature across the s/390 line, since > this feature is not a problem for the bare metal or an LPAR).
I did mean to comment on this too;-) Linux's caching for single-OS machines isn't so wonderful either. I'm run a postgresql database load a few times by way of a benchmark/test, and a result is that my 256 Mbytes of RAM gets absolutely full of database stuff. Then my desktop (KDE or GNOME) gets very slow indeed for a while until the cache gets recharged with stuff from /usr. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. ============================== If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
