A.P. Lawrence

uw7 unixware 7 kernel memory tuning rtpm

If this isn't exactly what you wanted, please try our Search (there's a LOT of techy and non-techy stuff here about Linux, Unix, Mac OS X and just computers in general!):

From - Wed Sep 26 06:52:21 2001
Path: typhoon.ne.mediaone.net!chnws06.ne.mediaone.net!24.147.2.43!chnws02.mediaone.net!newsfeed2.skycache.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.tn.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: robertl@localhost.localdomain (Robert Lipe)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: Unixware 7.1 memory References: <9on8qc$46s$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net> <3BAF9EFA.CC4EA056@inreach.com> <slrn9qvedb.1vk.robertl@localhost.localdomain> <3BB0DBDC.5BB264B7@attglobal.net>
Message-Id: <slrn9r29ji.k90.robertl@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.4 (Linux)
Lines: 41
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:50:58 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.252.223.189
X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net
X-Trace: news1.rdc1.tn.home.com 1001465458 24.252.223.189 (Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:50:58 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:50:58 PDT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Xref: chnws06.ne.mediaone.net comp.unix.sco.misc:103768

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 19:31:53 GMT, Ben Rosenthal <bcrosen@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Robert Lipe wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 21:01:24 GMT, Pat Welch <patubb@inreach.com> wrote:
>>
>> >But, UW7 unfortunately does very little 'auto' tuning on it's own,
>> >unlike OS5.
>>
>> Well, that's true in a left-handed way.
>>
>
>On behalf of the left-handed people who read this newsgroup, I hope it's true in
>a _good_ way.  Remember left-handed is right brained. 8-))

It's just a saying.   I'm not trying to pick a fight with anybody...
The phrase means things that are true, but in a counterinuitive way.

>> Systems of the SVR4 lineage don't *need* as much kernel tuning.  They're
>> highly dynamic and can efficiently shift resources - such as memory - around
>> on demand instead of requiring the system administrator or some program
>> to figure out that "ooooh, you need more hash queues; let me turn up that
>
> So does this mean that UW7/OU8 does a better job at dynamic kernel 
> tuning than OSVR5?

Reduced to a boolean quantity, I'd have to say "yes".

There are many fewer knobs for the admin to turn.   The reality is that the
OS can know how better to tune things than the admin will.   And it can 
adjust to things on the fly - without kernel relinks; without reboots - so
the system can make good use of the resources *at this moment*.   The page
pool can look very different on an idle system at 3 a.m. then when it
starts the backup than when 750 users log in in the morning.

I could also bore you with things about reduced paging, improved cache
coherency, less "dead" memory, and lots of other things, but I'll stick 
with my answer of "yes, the SVR5 kernel does a better job of dynamic
tuning."

Signed,
A Senior S/W Engr in the SVR5 Kernel Development Team

Enter your email address for automatic notification of new posts here
(be sure to whitelist 'feedburner.com' if you use spam filtering)

/Bofcusm/685.html copyright 1997-2004 (various authors) All Rights Reserved

Have you tried Searching this site?

Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates

This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more. We appreciate comments and article submissions.

Publishing your articles here