From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Mar 31 11:10:47 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA03917
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 11:10:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA03911
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 11:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA09152; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 14:14:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970331141000.00ae5cc0@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 14:10:03 -0500
To: Jeff Dickson <jeff.dickson@jpl.nasa.gov>
From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: re: 2.2R real slow with 8 meg
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

At 09:51 AM 3/31/97 -0800, you wrote:
>> 2.2 is noticably slower with only 8 meg of ram....is this to be
expected, or
>> is there some configuration option that needs to be tweeked? I'm pretty
>> much using the GENERIC settings.
>> 
>
>Hi Dennis. You need more memory! I bet the machine is swapping like
>crazy. Run top and see what the percentage of swap space used is. You
>should also remake your kernel so it doesn't include a whole bunch of
>stuff that isn't needed. That'll save alot of memory in itself and has-
>ten the boot procedure. I have 24 MB on my system (2.1) and that's 
>barely enough! 
>
I'll bet I do also...but the question is WHY? A machine with basic
networking, a text console and virtually no services running shouldnt
pig out with 8 meg. Or is FreeBSD now suffering from Windowsitis?

Dennis