Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
From: Ray Lee <hidden>
Date: 2006-08-19 16:53:58
Also in:
lkml, netdev
On 8/18/06, Andrew Morton [off-list ref] wrote:
I assert that this can be solved by putting swap on local disks. Peter asserts that this isn't acceptable due to disk unreliability. I point out that local disk reliability can be increased via MD, all goes quiet. A good exposition which helps us to understand whether and why a significant proportion of the target user base still wishes to do swap-over-network would be useful.
Adding a hard drive adds $low per system, another failure point, and more importantly ~3-10 Watts which then has to be paid for twice (once to power it, again to cool it). For a hundred seats, that's significant. For 500, it's ranging toward fully painful. I'm in the process of designing the next upgrade for a VoIP call center, and we want to go entirely diskless in the agent systems. We'd also rather not swap over the network, but 'swap is as swap does.' That said, it in no way invalidates using /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes... Ray -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>