On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
> I do not care much whether the cache is using 99% of the systems memory
> or 50%. As long as there is free memory, using it for cache is great. I
> care a lot if the cache takes down interactivity, because it pushes out
> processes that it thinks idle, but that I need in 5 seconds. The caches
> pressure against processes
Too bad that processes are in general cached INSIDE the cache.
You'll have to write a new balancing story now ;)
regards,
Rik
--
Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release:
"we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Marco Colombo
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Daniel Phillips
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Pozsar Balazs
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Jason McMullan
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 John Fremlin
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Pavel Machek
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Dan Maas
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Mike Castle
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Xavier Bestel
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Martin Knoblauch
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Rik van Riel
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Martin Knoblauch
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Helge Hafting
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Martin Knoblauch
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Tobias Ringstrom
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Xavier Bestel
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Tobias Ringstrom
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 mike_phillips
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Alan Cox
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Tobias Ringstrom
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Alan Cox

