Performance enhancements

[Net Llama!]

On 12/30/02 16:20, Marvin P. Dickens wrote:
>>  you provided no references,
>> and just did a lot of hand waving about what is happening on other mailing
>> lists with respect to a bleeding edge _unstable_ kernel. 
> 
> 
> Lonnie, ever since you became an editor on this site you think you know it all.

I've been an editor since day one.  Make what you like of that.

> Well, you don't. Further, you have a big ego and a mouth to go with it. In previous
> posts I have shown you material from earlier kernels (Which the information applies 
> to the current kernel whether you think it does or not) I show you information regarding
> future kernels and you and you flame me.

Flame you?  Unlike your recent display of infantile behavior, i wasn't 
flaming you, I was questioning your claim, and you failed to back it up. 
  I made sure as hell not to make this personal, but sinsce you were 
apparently grasping at straws, you made it personal.  Sorry if you're so 
thin skinned that you take that personally.  Contrary to your 
assertions, I happen to have the experience to know that a box without 
swap is an unstable timebomb waiting to go off.  I've seen servers that 
were setup without swap, have their kernels randomly kill off processes 
in an attempt to free up physical memory.  I've seen this happen with a 
2.4.x kernel several times.  I don't care how much you want to jump up & 
down screaming that you're right, my experience proves otherwise.  All 
you're had to bulster your flawed argument was arcane references to 
ancient research.  Removing swap is not a performance enhancer under a 
2.4.x kernel, and wasn't under a 2.2.x kernel either.  If you knew half 
of what you claim, you'd be aware that the VM under an ancient 2.0.x 
kernel is night & day different than that of a 2.2.x or 2.4.x kernel. 
Comparing the two is comparing dogs to minivans.

> I have tried to share information with people that I thought would be useful. You,

It was flawed, and you were called on it.  Why not accept that fact that 
you were wrong?  I didn't realize that so much of your ego was riding on 
each contribution to this list.

> on the other hand are interested in debate and flames. I don't have the time for 
> such nonsense. So, tell you what: I'll unsubscribe and not participate anymore.

Yea, apparently you only have the time to launch flames at me, and then 
run for cover.  You didnt' have the time to defend your argument, 
because you had none.

> That way both of us are happy: You get to decide what is right and wrong for the rest
> of this list and since I'm not on it anymore, I don't have to listed to it.

THis isn't my list, i don't care who is a member, or who isn't.  You're 
only spiting yourself by leaving.  HAND.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman                       	       netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: 		    http://netllama.ipfox.com

   4:30pm  up 15 days, 23:39,  2 users,  load average: 0.35, 0.72, 0.56