Re: [uml-devel] Re: [uml-user] Network lags

[Henrik N. <um...@he...>]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004, Sven K=F6hler wrote:

> good point, but mlocking 128M should be like running the host with 128M=
=20
> less. so if i could tell the kernel not to touch a certain memory-area=20
> on the append-line, should there still be any VM issues?
> of course that would need further patching of the host-kernel so that=20
> UML can access and manage the reserved memory.

Just add your own patch to uml to mlock the memory if you seriously=20
think this is a good idea.

Myself would build me a host with ample memory, and no swap partition if
swapping of the host worries me. (Note: /dev/anon required to stop UMLs
from being swapped out).

> sound good too, but what i have in mind is a more static thing. even if=
=20
> the host goes mad and eats all the memory, i still want to be sure that=
=20
> the UML-kernels have their memory region and this won't get swapped out.

See first paragraph above.. or better yet, don't allow running anything o=
n
the host which may go berserk and eat all the memory or cause heavy=20
I/O..

Regards
Henrik