Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core

[Andre Tomt <andre@tomt.net>]

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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/