On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 08:10:07PM +0800, paragasu wrote:
> > There is a lot more than just the I/O scheduler. It just popped into my
> > head because I am doing the configuration right now, myself, and because
> > of the debate/controversy about it. Also, you will want to build the
> > device dr
Mark Allums wrote:
paragasu wrote:
i will love to find out all the option available. I just one to ask
one more thing. i hope it
is not too much. Isn't the kernel have modular support. able to load
and unload the
needed and unneeded modules on the fly?
How much is the improvement compare to t
paragasu wrote:
i will love to find out all the option available. I just one to ask one
more thing. i hope it
is not too much. Isn't the kernel have modular support. able to load and
unload the
needed and unneeded modules on the fly?
How much is the improvement compare to the strip down versio
> There is a lot more than just the I/O scheduler. It just popped into my
> head because I am doing the configuration right now, myself, and because
> of the debate/controversy about it. Also, you will want to build the
> device drivers you need as modules, and configure the system to unload
> mo
paragasu wrote:
thanks Mark Allums,
Honestly, i spent less time looking on the kernel side. i will look at
the documentation
for the I/O scheduler options. great information you have ;)
Ron Johnson gets the credit. The idea is, you are low on RAM, so
prevent anything from using RAM. If you
paragasu wrote:
There are three I/O schedulers in the 2.6.24 distribution. The
deadline, anticipatory, and completely fair. You will see these as
options when you run make gconfig (or whichever config you run).
Completely Fair (CFQ) is now the default. This was mildly controve
> There are three I/O schedulers in the 2.6.24 distribution. The
> deadline, anticipatory, and completely fair. You will see these as
> options when you run make gconfig (or whichever config you run).
> Completely Fair (CFQ) is now the default. This was mildly controversial
> when they made the
paragasu wrote:
BSD 7.0 is alleged to be better than Linux 2.6.xx, but that is disputed.
You might want to use a different scheduler and I/O scheduler than the
default if you use a 2.6.24 kernel. As the man said, compile your own.
well, add RAM is out of question, because it is a
> BSD 7.0 is alleged to be better than Linux 2.6.xx, but that is disputed.
> You might want to use a different scheduler and I/O scheduler than the
> default if you use a 2.6.24 kernel. As the man said, compile your own.
>
> I can't answer as well about the userlands. That depends on what
> envi
On 03/30/08 19:54, paragasu wrote:
I find on my boxes with 64 MB ram or less, that I hit swap
often. Etch
is like that. So for old boxes, I run OpenBSD. No re-compiling
necessary.
Doug.
are u suggesting that OpenBSD use better resource than debian etch?
"Better"? Not if y
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:17:59 +0800
paragasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i have a small vps with only 64MB memory. i am trying to run a costume
> made PHP
> scripts in there but i have trouble. when i install mysql server 5.0
> and apache2 server.
> it is so slow. in fact too slow. thus two server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/30/08 19:54, paragasu wrote:
>
> I find on my boxes with 64 MB ram or less, that I hit swap often. Etch
> is like that. So for old boxes, I run OpenBSD. No re-compiling
> necessary.
>
> Doug.
>
>
>
> are u suggesting that
> I find on my boxes with 64 MB ram or less, that I hit swap often. Etch
> is like that. So for old boxes, I run OpenBSD. No re-compiling
> necessary.
>
> Doug.
>
are u suggesting that OpenBSD use better resource than debian etch?
is there any way to customize debian etch so it use server reso
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 01:17:59AM +0800, paragasu wrote:
> i have a small vps with only 64MB memory. i am trying to run a costume made
> PHP
> well, assume i don't have enough money to buy a better server. it is
> possible to make a
> very fast server with compiling the source code etc..
>
> th
14 matches
Mail list logo
