Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4

From: Mike Fedyk (mfedyk@matchmail.com)
Date: Sat Oct 20 2001 - 14:56:29 EST


On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 09:05:29PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> On Fri, 2001-10-19 at 20:38, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Keep in mind that once you start exposing tuning parameters you tend to get
> > lots of user programs out there that break without the parameters, or if the
> > parameters don't behave the same way across versions. Official tuning
> > parameters also get in the way of trying out new algorithms, which might not
> > even support the old tweaks, for example.
>
> Agreed. They also encourage people to write algorithms that are
> suboptimal, but perform OK with proper tuning. This, imho, is the
> biggest argument against.
>

How does this differ when the tuning is hard coded?

There are always cases where the algo will fall over.

One thing I can say in favor of hard coded tuning is that it encourages the
cases where it does fall over to be reported, and possibly fixed.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 23 2001 - 21:00:26 EST