From: stewart@wimsey.bc.ca (Jim Stewart) Subject: Re: 0.97 patchlevel 3 available Date: 9 Sep 1992 08:11:07 GMT
In article <1992Sep8.181011.17161@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep5.184606.11361@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds) writes:
>
>| The swap-page handling resulted in a reduction of swap-file (or
>| partition) size to a maximum of 16MB per file. It's nothing inherent to
>| the code, but it eased some algorithms, so I didn't bother coding around
>| it. After all, 16MB is enough for most people, and if you want more,
>| you can have up to 128 swapfiles of 16MB each. If I get enough
>| hate-mail about it, I might just try to find the energy to correct it.
>| Maybe.
>
> Hate mail, no, but I think this should be fixed at some point.
>As long as multiple swap file work those users who need huge swap space
>can have it by creating a /swap (or some such) partition and creating
>multiple swap files within it. It's ugly, but I see no reason why a
>feature used only by a few people should be pretty as long as it works.
>If you couldn't do it at all I'd complain, but I can live with this if
>my image size gets so big it doesn't fit in 16+16 I'll live with a
>little inconvenience. Of course having more memory work would be nice,
>too, but it raises all sorts of problems. Maybe memory >16M could be
>used for swap of some such.
Huge images are a problem now. Until the GCC "large initialized array"
problem is fixed, it will be not be possible to compile xphoon :-), or
more importantly flex -f scanners without a very large swapspace. I seem
to allways be deleting 10 meg core files. Please don't misunderstand,
this is not hate mail, (or even mildly perturbed mail) ... I can live
without xphoon, and compressed scanners are fast enough under linux :-)
js