> > > Not that I would recommend swapping over USB anyway....
> >
> > Why is that? The USB 2.0 disks seem like bandwidth won't
> > be an issue. Is it the iffy error handling going through SCSI?
>
> No, it's basically the same problem as swapping over nfs.
> Sometimes not only GFP_ATOMIC is needed, but failure due
> to a lack of memory is not an option either.
Hmm, I know that Solaris and SVr4 swapped over NFS since
back in the SunOS 4.0 days. What's the deal? There would
seem to be two options: (a) swapping code has a way to cope
with temporary failures, maybe try to swap other pages, and
(b) only if no pages can be swapped, panic. Panics weren't
something I remember hearing about, so I don't think they
can ever have been common..
I know there's been a lot of discussion/work about making
memory management better, none of which I've paid attention
to. Is the situation that Linux only has (b), not (a)? Or is
the concern instead to completely eradicate (a)? Or maybe
just make it happen a lot less? :)
> Plus of course, the issue of disconnect on a device holding a swapfile.
That one's more workable. A lot of the USB 2.0 controllers
are set up with internal connectors. It's practical to have
internal disks on USB, using serial cables rather than nasty
IDE ribbon cables complicating airflow ... and still get decent
I/O performance (except for server style loads).
- Dave
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
