> > Yet John Bradford says that in swapless 8MB, 2.5.40 is "springier"
> > than 2.4.x, so weird.
>
> Depends on what tests are I suppose. "springier" doesn't
> really say too much. We do minimise memory usage in a few
> places if mem<16M though iirc which could be helping this case.
Well, I've got the following:
486, SX-25 laptop, with 8 MB Ram, no swap, running 2.5.40 and also 2.4.19.
486, SX-20 laptop, with 4 MB Ram, 20 MB swap, running 2.2.21, and 2.2.13.
Both are capable of running the lastest Apache, with PHP support, and Lynx at a usable speed, (I use the 8 MB Ram machine for debugging small bits of PHP while I'm on the tube going up to London :-) ).
I know "feels springier" isn't very helpful, but what benchmarks do you expect me to run on machines with 120 Meg HDs? :-) Suggest something, and I'll give it a go. It's not really faster, just more responsive, (E.G. doing a updatedb, and using jed at the same time is better in 2.5.x).
By the way, I've got X11 running on the 4 meg one, and it's quite usable. I have even demoed a graphical browser accessing the local Apache, serving PHP content.
If anybody doesn't believe me, come along to Linux Expo UK next week, and see for yourselves :-).
John.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:43 EST