> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > 1) 2.4 does have the failure modes you talk about ;)
>
> Shock :) How does one trigger them?
>
>
> > 2) I have most of an explicit load control algorithm ready,
> > against an early 2.4 kernel, but porting it should be very
> > little work
> >
> > Just let me know if you're interested in my load control mechanism
> > and I'll send it to you.
>
> It would be interesting if you could send out what you have.
>
> It would also be interesting to know if we really care? The
> machine is already running 10x slower than it would be if it
> had enough memory; perhaps it is just not a region of operation
> for which we're interested in optimising. (Just being argumentitive
> here ;))
I think there is a need for keeping an overloaded machine in some way
usable, not because anyone is really running it that way, but because the
sysadmin needs a way to determine why a correctly sized machine is
suddenly seeing a high load.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/