From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:00:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:00:27 -0400 Received: from mail3.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.38]:45223 "EHLO mail3.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:00:08 -0400 From: "M. Edward Borasky" To: Subject: Have the 2.4 kernel memory management problems on large machines been fixed? Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 07:00:11 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <20020522085111.C20554@ds217-115-141-141.dedicated.hosteurope.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org A few months ago, there was a flurry of reports from people having difficulties with memory management on large machines (ia32 over 4 GB). I've seen a lot of 2.4.x-yy kernels go by and much VM discussion, but what I'm *not* seeing is reports of either catastrophic behavior or its absence on large machines. I haven't had a chance to run my own test cases on the 2.4.18 kernel from Red Hat 7.3 yet, so I can't make any personal contribution to this discussion. -- M. Edward Borasky http://www.borasky-research.net/HarryIannis.htm znmeb@aracnet.com