On 8 Aug 2000 wingel@t1.ctrl-c.liu.se wrote:
> dg@suse.com wrote:
> [snip]
> >and of course VMS is not the
> >last word by any means, but the system was very tunable, and had specific
> >explicit mechanisms to attain many of the goals of vm system.
>
> I'm not sure if I like tunables. My feeling after playing around with
> VMS for a few years is that it's next to impossible to get all these
> tunables right.
I had no trouble getting them darned close, and AUTOGEN did even better
when it came out.
> Having a tunable usually means "we can't get this right
> so we'll just blame the user (admin) for using bad values". Of course
Sometimes it means, "our customers know more about their workloads than we
do, so let them do what they need to."
> sometimes tunables are needed, but I'd like as few as possible, or they
> should at least ble automatically managed unless the user sets them
> explicitly.
Agree.
-- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@IUPUI.Edu 2000-05-05 13:27:15 GMT -- still no icebergs in the White River- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:31 EST