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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux