On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Steve Kieu wrote:
> Just an information for you to compare, now I am
> running the kernel compile from mandrake 80; version
> 2.4.3-20mdk on a
> machine Intel celeron 400Mhz 128M RAM, i810 graphic
> card (it will use some memory) ; runing together
> Star Office 5.2, Netscape
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, root wrote:
> >
> > > Regarding to the discussion on the swap size,
> > >
> > > Recently, Rick van Riel posted a message that there is a bug
> > > related to "reclaiming" the swap, and
Just an information for you to compare, now I am
running the kernel compile from mandrake 80; version
2.4.3-20mdk on a
machine Intel celeron 400Mhz 128M RAM, i810 graphic
card (it will use some memory) ; runing together
Star Office 5.2, Netscape 4.77, Mozilla (shiped with
LM80), compiling alsa
Just an information for you to compare, now I am
running the kernel compile from mandrake 80; version
2.4.3-20mdk on a
machine Intel celeron 400Mhz 128M RAM, i810 graphic
card (it will use some memory) ; runing together
Star Office 5.2, Netscape 4.77, Mozilla (shiped with
LM80), compiling alsa
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Steve Kieu wrote:
Just an information for you to compare, now I am
running the kernel compile from mandrake 80; version
2.4.3-20mdk on a
machine Intel celeron 400Mhz 128M RAM, i810 graphic
card (it will use some memory) ; runing together
Star Office 5.2, Netscape 4.77,
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, root wrote:
>
> > Regarding to the discussion on the swap size,
> >
> > Recently, Rick van Riel posted a message that there is a bug
> > related to "reclaiming" the swap, and said that it is on his
> > TODO list.
>
> That's fixed.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, root wrote:
> Regarding to the discussion on the swap size,
>
> Recently, Rick van Riel posted a message that there is a bug
> related to "reclaiming" the swap, and said that it is on his
> TODO list.
That's fixed.
> If I believe it, the current trouble we have regarding
Regarding to the discussion on the swap size,
Recently, Rick van Riel posted a message that there is a bug
related to "reclaiming" the swap, and said that it is on his
TODO list.
If I believe it, the current trouble we have regarding to the swap
size is not because we do not have a
Regarding to the discussion on the swap size,
Recently, Rick van Riel posted a message that there is a bug
related to reclaiming the swap, and said that it is on his
TODO list.
If I believe it, the current trouble we have regarding to the swap
size is not because we do not have a sufficient
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, root wrote:
Regarding to the discussion on the swap size,
Recently, Rick van Riel posted a message that there is a bug
related to reclaiming the swap, and said that it is on his
TODO list.
That's fixed.
If I believe it, the current trouble we have regarding to the
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, root wrote:
Regarding to the discussion on the swap size,
Recently, Rick van Riel posted a message that there is a bug
related to reclaiming the swap, and said that it is on his
TODO list.
That's fixed.
It's not. We
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:58:35 +0200, you wrote:
>I have a database server with 1G phys and 1G swap. It uses 950+ MB for cache,
>as it should, and doesn't even *touch* swap. This is 2.4.5.
I thought the new rule is:
total_memory = max(physical, swap);
And the old rule was:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 10:31:47PM +0300, Dan Podeanu wrote:
> > Yes, I know there's no hard and fast rule for the exact ammount of ram/swap one
> > needs that will always work. However, in 2.2 for a 'workstation' one could
> > usually quite happily get away with having 128:128 and never have
> Yes, I know there's no hard and fast rule for the exact ammount of ram/swap one
> needs that will always work. However, in 2.2 for a 'workstation' one could
> usually quite happily get away with having 128:128 and never have much of a
> problem. with 2.4.0 and up this isn't the case. This
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 10:12:39PM +0300, Dan Podeanu wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > 'lo all. I've got a question about swap and RAM requirements in 2.4. Now,
> > when 2.4.0 was kicked out, the fact that you need swap=2xRAM was mentioned.
> > But what I'm
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> 'lo all. I've got a question about swap and RAM requirements in 2.4. Now,
> when 2.4.0 was kicked out, the fact that you need swap=2xRAM was mentioned.
> But what I'm wondering is what exactly are the limits on this. Right now
> I've
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 08:58:35PM +0200, Jakob ?stergaard wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > 'lo all. I've got a question about swap and RAM requirements in 2.4. Now,
> > when 2.4.0 was kicked out, the fact that you need swap=2xRAM was mentioned.
> > But
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> 'lo all. I've got a question about swap and RAM requirements in 2.4. Now,
> when 2.4.0 was kicked out, the fact that you need swap=2xRAM was mentioned.
> But what I'm wondering is what exactly are the limits on this. Right now
> I've
'lo all. I've got a question about swap and RAM requirements in 2.4. Now,
when 2.4.0 was kicked out, the fact that you need swap=2xRAM was mentioned.
But what I'm wondering is what exactly are the limits on this. Right now
I've got an x86 box w/ 128ram and currently 256swap. When I had 128,
'lo all. I've got a question about swap and RAM requirements in 2.4. Now,
when 2.4.0 was kicked out, the fact that you need swap=2xRAM was mentioned.
But what I'm wondering is what exactly are the limits on this. Right now
I've got an x86 box w/ 128ram and currently 256swap. When I had 128,
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
'lo all. I've got a question about swap and RAM requirements in 2.4. Now,
when 2.4.0 was kicked out, the fact that you need swap=2xRAM was mentioned.
But what I'm wondering is what exactly are the limits on this. Right now
I've got
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 08:58:35PM +0200, Jakob ?stergaard wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
'lo all. I've got a question about swap and RAM requirements in 2.4. Now,
when 2.4.0 was kicked out, the fact that you need swap=2xRAM was mentioned.
But what I'm
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
'lo all. I've got a question about swap and RAM requirements in 2.4. Now,
when 2.4.0 was kicked out, the fact that you need swap=2xRAM was mentioned.
But what I'm wondering is what exactly are the limits on this. Right now
I've got
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 10:12:39PM +0300, Dan Podeanu wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
'lo all. I've got a question about swap and RAM requirements in 2.4. Now,
when 2.4.0 was kicked out, the fact that you need swap=2xRAM was mentioned.
But what I'm
Yes, I know there's no hard and fast rule for the exact ammount of ram/swap one
needs that will always work. However, in 2.2 for a 'workstation' one could
usually quite happily get away with having 128:128 and never have much of a
problem. with 2.4.0 and up this isn't the case. This has
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 10:31:47PM +0300, Dan Podeanu wrote:
Yes, I know there's no hard and fast rule for the exact ammount of ram/swap one
needs that will always work. However, in 2.2 for a 'workstation' one could
usually quite happily get away with having 128:128 and never have much of
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:58:35 +0200, you wrote:
I have a database server with 1G phys and 1G swap. It uses 950+ MB for cache,
as it should, and doesn't even *touch* swap. This is 2.4.5.
I thought the new rule is:
total_memory = max(physical, swap);
And the old rule was:
27 matches
Mail list logo
