Hi!
> So far all first-hand experiences I heard of were positive (i.e. I did
> not get an emaail from anyone saying: It had a negative effect for me),
> so I propose to apply the patch from Con Kolivas. The wording in the
> description still very strongly recommends to not change that value, and
Hi!
So far all first-hand experiences I heard of were positive (i.e. I did
not get an emaail from anyone saying: It had a negative effect for me),
so I propose to apply the patch from Con Kolivas. The wording in the
description still very strongly recommends to not change that value, and
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 14:47 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > So far all first-hand experiences I heard of were positive (i.e. I did
> > not get an emaail from anyone saying: It had a negative effect for me),
> > so I propose to apply the patch from Con Kolivas. The wording in the
> >
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 14:47 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
So far all first-hand experiences I heard of were positive (i.e. I did
not get an emaail from anyone saying: It had a negative effect for me),
so I propose to apply the patch from Con Kolivas. The wording in the
description
> I have not had yet any problems with VMSPLIT_3G_OPT ever since I
> used it -- which dates back to when it was a feature of Con
> Kolivas's patchset (known as LOWMEM1G), [even] before it got
> merged in mainline.
>
> (Excluding the cases Adrian Bunk listed: WINE, which I don't use, and
> also
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 04:45:04PM +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 13:27 +0100, Alejandro Riveira Fernández wrote:
> > El Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:10:03 +0100
> > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> >
> > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:19:08PM +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> >
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 13:27 +0100, Alejandro Riveira Fernández wrote:
> El Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:10:03 +0100
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:19:08PM +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > On
El Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:10:03 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:19:08PM +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
El Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:10:03 +0100
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:19:08PM +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
Hi,
I remember reading
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 13:27 +0100, Alejandro Riveira Fernández wrote:
El Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:10:03 +0100
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:19:08PM +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 04:45:04PM +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 13:27 +0100, Alejandro Riveira Fernández wrote:
El Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:10:03 +0100
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:19:08PM +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
On Wed,
I have not had yet any problems with VMSPLIT_3G_OPT ever since I
used it -- which dates back to when it was a feature of Con
Kolivas's patchset (known as LOWMEM1G), [even] before it got
merged in mainline.
(Excluding the cases Adrian Bunk listed: WINE, which I don't use, and
also 'some
On Dec 6 2006 22:00, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
>I have not had yet any problems with VMSPLIT_3G_OPT ever since I
>used it -- which dates back to when it was a feature of Con
>Kolivas's patchset (known as LOWMEM1G), [even] before it got
>merged in mainline.
(Excluding the cases Adrian Bunk listed:
On Dec 6 2006 14:36, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
>On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 13:45 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 13:19 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
>> > >
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 13:45 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 13:19 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I remember reading on
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:19:08PM +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I remember reading on LKML some time ago that using VMSPLIT_3G_OPT would
> > > be optimal
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 13:19 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I remember reading on LKML some time ago that using VMSPLIT_3G_OPT would
> > > be optimal for a
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I remember reading on LKML some time ago that using VMSPLIT_3G_OPT would
> > be optimal for a machine with exactly 1GB memory (like my current
> > desktop). Why is
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I remember reading on LKML some time ago that using VMSPLIT_3G_OPT would
> be optimal for a machine with exactly 1GB memory (like my current
> desktop). Why is that option only prompted for after selecting EMBEDDED
> (which I
Hi,
I remember reading on LKML some time ago that using VMSPLIT_3G_OPT would
be optimal for a machine with exactly 1GB memory (like my current
desktop). Why is that option only prompted for after selecting EMBEDDED
(which I normally don't select for desktop machines)?
Best,
Norbert
-
To
Hi,
I remember reading on LKML some time ago that using VMSPLIT_3G_OPT would
be optimal for a machine with exactly 1GB memory (like my current
desktop). Why is that option only prompted for after selecting EMBEDDED
(which I normally don't select for desktop machines)?
Best,
Norbert
-
To
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
Hi,
I remember reading on LKML some time ago that using VMSPLIT_3G_OPT would
be optimal for a machine with exactly 1GB memory (like my current
desktop). Why is that option only prompted for after selecting EMBEDDED
(which I normally
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
Hi,
I remember reading on LKML some time ago that using VMSPLIT_3G_OPT would
be optimal for a machine with exactly 1GB memory (like my current
desktop). Why is that
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 13:19 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
Hi,
I remember reading on LKML some time ago that using VMSPLIT_3G_OPT would
be optimal for a machine with
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:19:08PM +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
Hi,
I remember reading on LKML some time ago that using VMSPLIT_3G_OPT would
be optimal for a machine
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 13:45 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 13:19 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
Hi,
I remember reading on LKML some time ago
On Dec 6 2006 14:36, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 13:45 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 13:19 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
Hi,
On Dec 6 2006 22:00, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
I have not had yet any problems with VMSPLIT_3G_OPT ever since I
used it -- which dates back to when it was a feature of Con
Kolivas's patchset (known as LOWMEM1G), [even] before it got
merged in mainline.
(Excluding the cases Adrian Bunk listed: WINE,
28 matches
Mail list logo
