| To: | Doruk Fisek <dfisek@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: system requirements |
| From: | Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:21:47 -0600 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20011113110546.628a33ad.dfisek@fisek.com.tr> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2.1) Gecko/20010901 |
Doruk Fisek wrote: Hi, I have seen reports of people running it on low memory machines, but I cannot remember any particulars. Yes, it does grow the kernel quite a bit, but you can turn of some parts of it at least (quotas, acls, dmapi) and definitely kdb, not that kdb is really anything to do with xfs, that makes a pretty large change on its own. My simple test of pruning the memory back on a test box did not boot with 8 Meg, but it is dual cpu, has all the above turned on in the kernel, runs networking, scsi and ide disks etc - probably a little ambitious. 16M came all the way up though. In general XFS is not to resource hungry, it generally does not seem to use lots of cpu - unless you want to do nothing but crunch inodes. I have seen it on everything from old laptops to some pretty high end boxes. Steve |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | system requirements, Doruk Fisek |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TAKE - xfs_acl_t, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | system requirements, Doruk Fisek |
| Next by Thread: | Re: system requirements, Simon Matter |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |