| 1 |
On 17/06/19 04:37, Grant Taylor wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 6/16/19 7:02 PM, Wols Lists wrote: |
| 3 |
>> So you didn't read what I wrote ... Par for the course :-( |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I did. I still hear people say it today. It's not old as in past tense. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> The basic Unix mechanism needs twice ram. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I disagree. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> It's inherent in the design of the thing. Whether linux no longer uses |
| 12 |
>> the Unix mechanism, or it's had the hell optimised out of it I don't |
| 13 |
>> know. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Either way, machines today get by on precious little swap - that's fine. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> Historic note - the early linux 2.4 vanilla kernels enforced the twice |
| 18 |
>> ram rule - a lot of people who didn't read the release notes got nasty |
| 19 |
>> shocks when their machines locked up the moment they touched swap ... |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I disagree because I ran 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6 kernels without swap |
| 22 |
> being twice the ram or greater. Swap did get used. They did not crash |
| 23 |
> when accessing swap. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
Did you run VANILLA 2.4? (None of the distro kernels carried those |
| 26 |
particular changes, for obvious reasons :-) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
You want proof? Look at the release notes for - I believe - 2.4.10? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Or look at LWN in that time frame. It was quite big news at the time - |
| 31 |
people were upgrading to Linus' latest kernel and systems were falling over. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
You're making the classic logical mistake of "it's not true for me |
| 34 |
therefore it can't be true". It wasn't true for me either, but I lived |
| 35 |
through the news-storm and remember it ... |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Cheers, |
| 38 |
Wol |
Archives