RE: major VM with 2.4.10pre12 and 2.4.10pre13 and highmem, we w

[DICKENS,CARY]

Rik,

I'm working with Erik and need to know which of the 3 patches ( or all )
that you want data for.  We are setting up the plain test right now.

aging
aging+launder
aging2launder

Cary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: HABBINGA,ERIK (HP-Loveland,ex1) 
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 3:10 PM
> To: DICKENS,CARY (HP-Loveland,ex2)
> Subject: FW: major VM suckage with 2.4.10pre12 and 2.4.10pre13 and
> highmem, we will help test
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rik van Riel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 3:01 PM
> To: HABBINGA,ERIK (HP-Loveland,ex1)
> Cc: '[e-mail]'
> Subject: Re: major VM suckage with 2.4.10pre12 and 2.4.10pre13 and
> highmem, we will help test
> 
> 
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, HABBINGA,ERIK (HP-Loveland,ex1) wrote:
> 
> > Kernel 2.4.10pre13 did not help our NFS SPEC testing on a 
> machine with
> > 4GB RAM.  Refer to my previous message about those results:
> > http://lists.insecure.org/linux-kernel/2001/Sep/3036.html
> >
> > In a nutshell, kswapd starts grabbing 99% of the CPU for long
> > stretches in time, which causes us to drop NFS RPC 
> connections, which
> > causes performance to suck.
> 
> I'm curious, how do recent -ac kernels perform here ?
> 
> If you have the time, could you test 2.4.9-ac13 plain
> and 2.4.9-ac13 with my page aging and launder patches
> from http://www.surriel.com/patches/ ?  ;)
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Rik
> -- 
> IA64: a worthy successor to i860.
> 
> http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/
> 
> Send all your spam to [e-mail] (spam digging piggy)
>