On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 16:51 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 10:11 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> >> Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>> I think we're going to have to go with something like this, but why
> >>> would we reduce the cap to 64MB? I usually think of ia64 systems as
> >>> having "bigger" I/O than x86, so it seems like maybe we want to stick
> >>> with at least 128MB(?)
> >> I think my original thought was that since your 96G box only needed
> >> really 17MB, 64MB was a ton to withhold. But after hitting send, I was
> >> thinking that no cap at all might make more sense -- you'd need 288GB of
> >> RAM to even get to 64MB here, and that's a tiny drop in the bucket when
> >> you have that much. Even with 1TB of RAM, we would still withhold less
> >> than 256MB. Until we have some 1TB+ systems to test on, we don't really
> >> know if reserving more than 128MB makes sense or not... I'd have to lean
> >> toward simply not capping this withholding at all, at least for right now.
> >
> > That sounds ok with me, we can continue to fine tune it via bug
> > reports if it's insufficient.
>
> Okay, attaching one more rendition of the patch that goes this route.
Applied. Thanks,
Alex
--
Alex Williamson HP Open Source & Linux Org.
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
Home