Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core

From: Andre Tomt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 03:33:25 +0200

Rik van Riel wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> - We expect that the lots-of-dirty-anon-memory-over-swap-over-network
>>   scenario might still cause deadlocks. 
>>   I assert that this can be solved by putting swap on local disks.  
>> Peter
>>   asserts that this isn't acceptable due to disk unreliability.  I point
>>   out that local disk reliability can be increased via MD, all goes 
>> quiet.
>>
>>   A good exposition which helps us to understand whether and why a
>>   significant proportion of the target user base still wishes to do
>>   swap-over-network would be useful.
>
> You cannot put disks in many models of blade servers.
>
> At all.

Or many thin clients in general. They are used in quite a few schools 
over here, running Linux.
Some of them do in fact have space for disks, but disks adds costs 
(heat, power, replacing failed drives)