From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IZBeY-0004u0-O9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:32:39 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l8MKMgTg010076; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:22:42 GMT Received: from poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de (poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.2.21]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l8MKMgEi010071 for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:22:42 GMT Received: from poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 60EF42086A6 for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:22:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from tu-clausthal.de (poseidon [139.174.2.21]) by poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4924C20869C for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:22:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from energy.heim10.tu-clausthal.de (account wevah [139.174.197.94] verified) by tu-clausthal.de (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.12) with ESMTPSA id 26264640 for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:22:42 +0200 From: Volker Armin Hemmann To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: What should the swap size be for 4G ram? Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:22:40 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <46F488FA.5070104@singnet.com.sg> <46F53191.8040204@thefreemanclan.net> In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200709222222.40293.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> X-Virus-Scanned: by PureMessage V5.3 at tu-clausthal.de X-Archives-Salt: e4d52f2a-3392-4815-a372-d5420c611332 X-Archives-Hash: 3284ef66d0d4cc6ab807e3b7ad86f117 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.= =20 And everytime a new patch arrived I compared it with an unpatched kernel (a= t=20 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.=20 X rules with cfs. It is just great. Under load, without load, it does not=20 matter. cfs is better. I am really curios what I did right that you do wron= g. second: a little bit less text would be great. This was almost TL;DR. You turned a= =20 simple question about swapsize into a large sermon about your cool box with= =20 it bazillion of gb ram, its superduper harddisk setup and its amazing=20 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 mo= re=20 readable. Not everybody enjoys picking the few cherries of relevant=20 information out of a sea of words. Gl=C3=BCck Auf -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list