On 31-Oct-2001 Jeff Waugh wrote: > <quote who="DaZZa"> >> I was under the impression that anything after 2.4.9 was somewhat suspect. > > Anything after 2.4.9 has the new VM. > > Anything after 2.4.10 has been borked in one way or another (parallel port > issues, etc, etc. Read Kernel Traffic or LWN's kernel page for more info).
If your system operates under heavy memory pressure, 2.4.10 is a Good Thing. I have a UltraSparc5 desktop running Debian unstable plus Gnome. The box in question is a loan machine, and needs more than the 64Mb RAM it has. I moved to 2.4 kernels 'cos I wanted XFree4 (which on Sparc requires a 2.4 kernel - and which is much more stable than 3.3 on Ultra5). Performance was horrible; I'd be swapping like mad with apparently lots of main memory free. The new VM has improved matters greatly. It's just ordinarily dog slow now. I have heard tell that recent improvements to the old VM continuing in the -ac series have made serious improvements, but since the Sparc tree at vger trackes Linus's kernel (and kernel tarballs are often bust for Sparc) a side-by-side comparison won't be that easy. Maybe I should get round to trying. http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1436/byt20011024s0002/1029_moshe.html is also a fan of the new VM. -- Jim Hague - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Work), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Play) Never trust a computer you can't lift or you don't control. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
