Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4

[Patrick McFarland]

--q9KOos5vDmpwPx9o
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hmm, it seems that I didnt realize I had to cc that to the list, because I =
belive this is something that should be on the list.

Anyhow, exactly how much tweeking did you do, and isnt the ac tree suppost =
to be unstable?

On 13-Oct-2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Now as of the tuning problem, that seems to be deep magic to me. How wo=
uld =3D
> > one tune 2.4 for a p133 with 16 megs of memory? Or should I just give u=
p an=3D
> > d try to tune 2.2?
>=20
> I've been running 2.4.12-ac1 happily on both 20Mb and 32Mb boxes. The=20
> performance of the kernel has been good. Indeed the tuning work I had to =
do
> on the 20Mb PC110 has been userspace.
>=20
> Alan
>=20

--=20
Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || [e-mail]

--q9KOos5vDmpwPx9o
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE7yHrM8Gvouk7G1cURAsK3AJ9Q+ABKmyFlYZFO6OCU++nIGkXfnwCcC1/n
gjqAwfnku++bmWGvxf9+BAo=
=r/uc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--q9KOos5vDmpwPx9o--