[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44E7BBE5.1040600@tomt.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 03:33:25 +0200
From: Andre Tomt <andre@...t.net>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, tgraf@...g.ch,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
Rik van Riel wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> - We expect that the lots-of-dirty-anon-memory-over-swap-over-network
>> scenario might still cause deadlocks.
>> 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.
>
> You cannot put disks in many models of blade servers.
>
> At all.
Or many thin clients in general. They are used in quite a few schools
over here, running Linux.
Some of them do in fact have space for disks, but disks adds costs
(heat, power, replacing failed drives)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists