Re: Autotune swappiness01

["R. J. Wysocki" <rjwysocki@sisk.pl>]

On Monday 26 of July 2004 13:47, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Nick Piggin wrote:
> >> Con Kolivas wrote:
> >>> In my ideal, nonsensical, impossible to obtain world we have an
> >>> autoregulating operating system that doesn't need any knobs.
> >>
> >> Some thinks are fundamental tradeoffs that can't be autotuned.
> >>
> >> Latency vs throughput comes up in a lot of places, eg. timeslices.
> >>
> >> Maximum throughput via effective use of swap, versus swapping as
> >> a last resort may be another.
> >
> > As I said... it was ideal, nonsensical, and impossible. Doesn't sound
> > like you're arguing with me.
>
> No, you're right. My ideal operating system knows what the user
> wants too ;)

Well, what I hate about various computer programs is that they seem to assume 
to know what I (the USER) want and they don't let me do anything else that 
they "know" what I should/would do. ;-)

> Most of the time though, you are right. The quality/desirability of an
> implementation will be inversely proportional to the number of knobs
> sticking out of it (with bonus points for those that are meaningful to
> 2 people on the planet).

Can you please tell me why you think that the least tunable implementation 
should be the best/most desirable one?  I always prefer the most tunable 
implementations which is quite opposite to what you have said, but this is my 
personal opinion, of course.

Yours,
rjw

-- 
Rafael J. Wysocki
[tel. (+48) 605 053 693]
----------------------------
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public 
relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
					-- Richard P. Feynman