On 4/5/2011 2:47 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
Fully agree, but I don't see anything in the changelog where that optimization occurred. So while it sounds great in theory I can't back it with the patches that went into 2.6.26-2 from 2.6.26-1. Although it is what I've been telling the client is the likely case for lack of a better answer and no loss in performance on the system.On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Daniel Gary<dgary1980@gmail.com> wrote:I'm not arguing that, I fully expect the kernel to use it to swap *if needed*. And if this was 20MB of swap, or maybe 100MB, ok, sure, the kernel might be swapping old pages out, but 300MB+ swapping out in 2.6.26-2 where 0MBUsing more memory for disk cache and less for storing rarely used pages sounds like a performance optimisation.
Unfortunately an upgrade to Squeeze is a bit more involved than the upgrade windows we have available, but I think may be the only option at this point, but that's kind of like fixing a sparkplug that doesn't fire by buying a new car, sure it'll probably do the job in the end, but that doesn't really explain why the sparkplug doesn't fire. But certainly a better reason to close the ticket than the previous one, doesn't make it invalid, just makes it a wontfix. I'd rather it be closed for someone being lazy than someone being dismissive, a good sysadmin is a lazy sysadmin after all.Anyway I don't think that there's going to be much interest in performance- tuning of Lenny kernels now that Squeeze is released.
Its not a tuning issue, its a change in a vacuum, more a freakish annoyance than anything, it performs fine, we benchmarked before & after and didn't notice any change either way other than these systems that swap, well... swap. The support tech in me says "screw it, it works", but the engineer in me says "hmm, thats funny".If you want help in tuning Lenny then probably debian-user or your local LUG mailing list would be the best option.