Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: What should the swap size be for 4G ram?

[Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de>]

On Samstag, 22. September 2007, Duncan wrote:

> FWIW I'm running the kernel 2.6.23-rcs, which of course have the new CFS
> CPU scheduler.  I wasn't too happy with it originally, as it'd zero out X
> responsiveness much faster than the old scheduler did, but it has gotten
> somewhat better as the rcs have progressed.  I don't think it's quite
> where the old one was yet, but if one truly wants "fair", one should
> expect to play with priorities/niceness a bit more to keep smooth X
> operation when running 200+ load average and heavy swapping.  It's
> certainly reasonable now; something I couldn't have said back around rc-3
> or 4, when I was pretty unhappy with it.  I guess we see how good they
> did when it releases and we see if there's any outcry on people having
> trouble with X or whatever.

two things:

I am using cfs for a long time now - since shortly after the first patches. 
And everytime a new patch arrived I compared it with an unpatched kernel (at 
the moment 2.6.22.5) and everytime I had the same result:

X is much, much, much and a lot better with cfs. I never had such a snappy X. 
X rules with cfs. It is just great. Under load, without load, it does not 
matter. cfs is better. I am really curios what I did right that you do wrong.

second:
a little bit less text would be great. This was almost TL;DR. You turned a 
simple question about swapsize into a large sermon about your cool box with 
it bazillion of gb ram, its superduper harddisk setup and its amazing 
computing power that makes it survive a 200 load.

Back at school you would have failed the test because of missing the point.

Remember: this is an international list. Less text is almost always much more 
readable. Not everybody enjoys picking the few cherries of relevant 
information out of a sea of words.

Glück Auf
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list