On Tuesday 26 July 2011 04:54:27 Grant wrote:
Is this because I've eselect'ed icedtea6-bin instead of sun-jdk-1.6?
BTW, can anyone tell me why I'm using icedtea6-bin instead of icedtea?
I don't know. On this box the only java-vm installed is icedtea6-bin.
--
Rgds
Peter
Sounds like a case for a swap partition that can be activated when you
need it for big emerges. I hit the same thing with firefox-5 oddly
enough.
I have one smallish swap partition at PRI=10 and a bigger one at PRI=1.
As for OOo, long ago I figured the pain wasn't worth the gain so now I
Grant wrote:
...
If my main rig starts using swap a lot, I'm going to be very curious. I
even used 8Gbs to put portages work directory on tmpfs. I still didn't use
any swap. By the way, that doesn't seem to make the compiles any faster.
o_O
CPU bottleneck?
- Grant
I
If my main rig starts using swap a lot, I'm going to be very curious. I
even used 8Gbs to put portages work directory on tmpfs. I still didn't
use
any swap. By the way, that doesn't seem to make the compiles any faster.
o_O
CPU bottleneck?
- Grant
I sort of doubt it. I have a AMD 4
...
Next I'd look at tuning your Mysql config. If you've never touched
my.cnf, by default it's set to use 64MB IIRC. You may need to raise this to
get better performance. key_buffer and innodb_buffer_pool_size are the only
two I'd modify without knowing more.
kashani
I'm running
...
If my main rig starts using swap a lot, I'm going to be very curious. I
even used 8Gbs to put portages work directory on tmpfs. I still didn't use
any swap. By the way, that doesn't seem to make the compiles any faster.
o_O
CPU bottleneck?
- Grant
...
That all makes perfect sense. So the reason a swap larger than maybe
1GB is not usually implemented is because idle processes don't
normally have more than a few hundred MB of pages in memory?
That's not entirely true, either. For example, My laptop has 4GB of
swap. Why? Well, because
On Thursday 21 July 2011 21:44:51 Alan McKinnon wrote:
Sounds like a case for a swap partition that can be activated when you
need it for big emerges. I hit the same thing with firefox-5 oddly
enough.
I have one smallish swap partition at PRI=10 and a bigger one at PRI=1.
As for OOo, long
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:16:41 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:
Think of it this way: You have a house with an attic. Now the attic is
not as efficient as say, the middle of your living room. You have a
Christmas tree, but you only use that Christmas tree maybe once a year.
Now it's much more
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its more how much i/o rather than the size. If you have a bunch of
stuff swapped out, but it hardly ever needs to be swapped in, the
impact will be low.
Keep an eye on the use with vmstat;
adam@rix ~ $ vmstat 5
procs
On Thursday 21 July 2011 17:26:33 kashani did opine thusly:
On 7/21/2011 4:53 PM, Grant wrote:
So swap isn't treated exactly like RAM. It actually has special
handling in Linux which makes it beneficial to have on almost
any
Linux system? According to Alan, things get very bad when a
On Thursday 21 July 2011 21:08:49 Albert Hopkins did opine thusly:
When a linux machine hits swap, it does so very aggressively,
there is nothing nice about it at all. The entire machine slows
to a painstaking crawl for easily a minute at a time while the
kernel writes pages out to disk,
Assuming you have the concept right, if I have 'MaxClients 50' and
'MaxSpareServers 10', there should never be more than 60 apache2
processes running and I should be able to serve up to 50 simultaneous
TCP sessions?
I'd guess it wouldnt go past 50.
Can anyone explain why I have 20 apache2
Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
You've not understood what I said, I think. Swap is not useful as
filesystem cache. Swap is as efficient
...
To confuse you even more, there is a swappiness setting as well. On my old
x86 rig, I have 2Gbs of ram. My hard drive is really slow since it is IDE.
I set swappiness to 20. That tells the kernel that I have swap space but
don't use it unless you must. For what I use the rig for, 2Gbs
...
Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
I have 12GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on my main PC. Why? Because... why
not? :) After 5 days uptime, it
...
Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
I have 12GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on my main PC. Why? Because... why
not? :) After 5 days uptime, it
On Friday 22 July 2011 19:13:35 Grant wrote:
Wouldn't a sufficiently large swap (100GB for example) completely prevent
out of memory conditions and the oom-killer?
Of course, on any system with more than a few dozen MB of RAM, but I can't
imagine any combination of running programs whose size
Grant wrote:
...
To confuse you even more, there is a swappiness setting as well. On my old
x86 rig, I have 2Gbs of ram. My hard drive is really slow since it is IDE.
I set swappiness to 20. That tells the kernel that I have swap space but
don't use it unless you must. For what I use
On Friday 22 July 2011 19:46:25 Grant wrote:
That's what I'm curious about. If some swap is good, why isn't more
better? Paul has demonstrated that a Linux system will put at least
10GB to use and probably much more given the opportunity. Disk space
is so cheap, why isn't everyone running
On Friday, July 22 at 11:46 (-0700), Grant said:
That's what I'm curious about. If some swap is good, why isn't more
better? Paul has demonstrated that a Linux system will put at least
10GB to use and probably much more given the opportunity. Disk space
is so cheap, why isn't everyone
On Friday, July 22 at 19:55 (+0100), Peter Humphrey said:
Wouldn't a sufficiently large swap (100GB for example) completely
prevent
out of memory conditions and the oom-killer?
Of course, on any system with more than a few dozen MB of RAM, but I
can't
imagine any combination of
Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Friday 22 July 2011 19:13:35 Grant wrote:
Wouldn't a sufficiently large swap (100GB for example) completely prevent
out of memory conditions and the oom-killer?
Of course, on any system with more than a few dozen MB of RAM, but I can't
imagine any
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
I have 12GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on my
On Friday, July 22 at 11:13 (-0700), Grant said:
That all makes perfect sense. So the reason a swap larger than maybe
1GB is not usually implemented is because idle processes don't
normally have more than a few hundred MB of pages in memory?
That's not entirely true, either. For example,
On 7/20/2011 6:29 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
Also, run a caching proxy if at all possible. That made the single
biggest difference for my server.
Other useful things:
* Set the MaxRequestsPerChild to something like 450.
That's pretty low. You'd barely get your application parsed, cached,
and
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is mysqld invoked oom-killer. I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based
on something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so
I suppose I should
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is mysqld invoked oom-killer. I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so I
suppose I should
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is mysqld invoked oom-killer. I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so I
suppose I should
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Alan, I think it was your advice I took a long time ago when I
stopped installing new machines with a swap partition and disabled it
on my already-installed machines. Some time later, others on this
list caught wind of
Hi Alan, I think it was your advice I took a long time ago when I
stopped installing new machines with a swap partition and disabled it
on my already-installed machines. Some time later, others on this
list caught wind of what I'd done and told me I was an idiot. Is
there a consensus on
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Paul. I'm leaning toward leaving swap disabled. So I'm sure I
have the concept right, is adding a 1GB swap partition functionally
identical to adding 1GB RAM with regard to the potential for
out-of-memory conditions?
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is mysqld invoked oom-killer. I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so I
suppose I should
* Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com [110721 12:33]:
[..]
I think if you have 4GB of RAM you shouldn't need any swap under
normal circumstances. I have a gentoo box with just 256MB of RAM
that's running web server (apache + php), mail server (postfix +
dovecot), and database (mariadb),
Thanks Paul. I'm leaning toward leaving swap disabled. So I'm sure I
have the concept right, is adding a 1GB swap partition functionally
identical to adding 1GB RAM with regard to the potential for
out-of-memory conditions?
Yep.
It sounds like adding physical RAM is better than enabling
[..]
I think if you have 4GB of RAM you shouldn't need any swap under
normal circumstances. I have a gentoo box with just 256MB of RAM
that's running web server (apache + php), mail server (postfix +
dovecot), and database (mariadb), and it works fine if i disable swap.
I do normally have
On 7/21/2011 9:53 AM, Grant wrote:
Next I'd look at tuning your Mysql config. If you've never touched
my.cnf, by default it's set to use 64MB IIRC. You may need to raise this to
get better performance. key_buffer and innodb_buffer_pool_size are the only
two I'd modify without knowing
On 7/21/2011 10:22 AM, Grant wrote:
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is mysqld invoked oom-killer. I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read previously that I later found out was
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:56 AM, kashani kashani-l...@badapple.net wrote:
On 7/20/2011 6:29 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
Also, run a caching proxy if at all possible. That made the single
biggest difference for my server.
Other useful things:
* Set the MaxRequestsPerChild to something like 450.
On 7/21/2011 11:55 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:56 AM, kashanikashani-l...@badapple.net wrote:
On 7/20/2011 6:29 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
Also, run a caching proxy if at all possible. That made the single
biggest difference for my server.
Other useful things:
* Set the
On Thursday 21 July 2011 09:39:52 Grant did opine thusly:
My personal rule of thumb: if you hit swap, the bad thing has
already gone very very south, usually to the point where you
can't do much about it and it's already too late. Besides, that
bastard deomon spawn of satan called the
On Thursday 21 July 2011 10:30:21 Grant did opine thusly:
[..]
I think if you have 4GB of RAM you shouldn't need any swap
under
normal circumstances. I have a gentoo box with just 256MB of
RAM
that's running web server (apache + php), mail server (postfix
+
dovecot), and
On Thursday 21 July 2011 10:27:58 Grant did opine thusly:
Thanks Paul. I'm leaning toward leaving swap disabled. So
I'm sure I have the concept right, is adding a 1GB swap
partition functionally identical to adding 1GB RAM with
regard to the potential for out-of-memory conditions?
Next I'd look at tuning your Mysql config. If you've never touched
my.cnf, by default it's set to use 64MB IIRC. You may need to raise this
to
get better performance. key_buffer and innodb_buffer_pool_size are the
only
two I'd modify without knowing more.
I use the default MyISAM
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is mysqld invoked oom-killer. I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so I
suppose I should
Also, run a caching proxy if at all possible. That made the single
biggest difference for my server.
Other useful things:
* Set the MaxRequestsPerChild to something like 450.
That's pretty low. You'd barely get your application parsed, cached,
and load some data before you'd have to
Next I'd look at tuning your Mysql config. If you've never touched
my.cnf, by default it's set to use 64MB IIRC. You may need to raise this
to
get better performance. key_buffer and innodb_buffer_pool_size are the
only
two I'd modify without knowing more.
I use the default MyISAM
On Thursday, July 21 at 10:27 (-0700), Grant said:
It sounds like adding physical RAM is better than enabling swap in
every way. I'll stay in the anti-swap camp.
I don't see why it has to be one way *or* the other...
Yes more RAM is always going to be better than more swap, RAM is just
way
On 7/21/2011 2:50 PM, Grant wrote:
Any reason you're still using MyISAM tables? Innodb is almost as fast
or much much faster than MyISAM in nearly every way these days.
Can multiple processes be utilized for mysql like they are for
apache2? Perhaps not since it's a database?
Mysql
On 07/21/2011 04:49 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Thursday 21 July 2011 10:27:58 Grant did opine thusly:
Thanks Paul. I'm leaning toward leaving swap disabled. So
I'm sure I have the concept right, is adding a 1GB swap
partition functionally identical to adding 1GB RAM with
regard to the
...
I would strongly advise you to make your own measurements and heed
your own counsel. I can only speak from my own experience, and I may
well be speaking a whole load of codswallop. Or I may be right and the
opposing view is wrong. Who's to tell?
My own experience with backing swap has
[..]
I think if you have 4GB of RAM you shouldn't need any swap
under
normal circumstances. I have a gentoo box with just 256MB of
RAM
that's running web server (apache + php), mail server (postfix
+
dovecot), and database (mariadb), and it works fine if i
disable swap. I do
On Thursday 21 July 2011 16:27:03 Grant did opine thusly:
[..]
I think if you have 4GB of RAM you shouldn't need any
swap
under
normal circumstances. I have a gentoo box with just
256MB of
RAM
that's running web server (apache + php), mail server
(postfix +
On Thursday 21 July 2011 19:19:07 Michael Orlitzky did opine thusly:
On 07/21/2011 04:49 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Thursday 21 July 2011 10:27:58 Grant did opine thusly:
Thanks Paul. I'm leaning toward leaving swap disabled.
So
I'm sure I have the concept right, is adding a 1GB swap
It sounds like adding physical RAM is better than enabling swap in
every way. I'll stay in the anti-swap camp.
I don't see why it has to be one way *or* the other...
Yes more RAM is always going to be better than more swap, RAM is just
way faster than disk, however byte-per-byte, disk is
Any reason you're still using MyISAM tables? Innodb is almost as
fast
or much much faster than MyISAM in nearly every way these days.
Can multiple processes be utilized for mysql like they are for
apache2? Perhaps not since it's a database?
Mysql is multithreaded and spawns
On 7/21/2011 4:53 PM, Grant wrote:
So swap isn't treated exactly like RAM. It actually has special
handling in Linux which makes it beneficial to have on almost any
Linux system? According to Alan, things get very bad when a Linux
system hits swap. How can behavior like this be beneficial:
On 7/21/2011 5:14 PM, Grant wrote:
Any reason you're still using MyISAM tables? Innodb is almost as
fast
or much much faster than MyISAM in nearly every way these days.
Can multiple processes be utilized for mysql like they are for
apache2? Perhaps not since it's a database?
So swap isn't treated exactly like RAM. It actually has special
handling in Linux which makes it beneficial to have on almost any
Linux system? According to Alan, things get very bad when a Linux
system hits swap. How can behavior like this be beneficial:
When a linux machine hits swap,
apache MaxClients has been lowered to 50 which is a shame because I
have 30+ separate images on each of my pages and that number can not
be reduced. This means I may not be able to serve more than 1 full
page at a time.
This is wrong.
Agreed. From TFM; The MaxClients directive sets
Any reason you're still using MyISAM tables? Innodb is almost as
fast
or much much faster than MyISAM in nearly every way these days.
Can multiple processes be utilized for mysql like they are for
apache2? Perhaps not since it's a database?
Mysql is multithreaded and spawns
OK, how about I enable a 512MB swap file and keep an eye on it. As
long as I'm not using more than 200MB, I'm not suffering from disk
swap slowdown, right?
Its more how much i/o rather than the size. If you have a bunch of
stuff swapped out, but it hardly ever needs to be swapped in, the
On Thursday, July 21 at 16:53 (-0700), Grant said:
So swap isn't treated exactly like RAM. It actually has special
handling in Linux which makes it beneficial to have on almost any
Linux system? According to Alan, things get very bad when a Linux
system hits swap. How can behavior like
On Friday, July 22 at 10:56 (+1000), Adam Carter said:
Its more how much i/o rather than the size. If you have a bunch of
stuff swapped out, but it hardly ever needs to be swapped in, the
impact will be low.
Keep an eye on the use with vmstat;
adam@rix ~ $ vmstat 5
procs
apache MaxClients has been lowered to 50 which is a shame because I
have 30+ separate images on each of my pages and that number can not
be reduced. This means I may not be able to serve more than 1 full
page at a time.
This is wrong.
Agreed. From TFM; The MaxClients directive sets
Its more how much i/o rather than the size. If you have a bunch of
stuff swapped out, but it hardly ever needs to be swapped in, the
impact will be low.
Keep an eye on the use with vmstat;
adam@rix ~ $ vmstat 5
procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io -system--
cpu
I'm trying to figure out the maximum number of apache2 processes that
could run simultaneously according to my config so I don't run out of
memory again. I have KeepAlive on, but I can see in the log that a
different pid serves each file associated with a particular page
request.
Ok, I
So swap isn't treated exactly like RAM. It actually has special
handling in Linux which makes it beneficial to have on almost any
Linux system? According to Alan, things get very bad when a Linux
system hits swap. How can behavior like this be beneficial:
When a linux machine hits swap,
I'm trying to figure out the maximum number of apache2 processes that
could run simultaneously according to my config so I don't run out of
memory again. I have KeepAlive on, but I can see in the log that a
different pid serves each file associated with a particular page
request.
Ok, I
On Thursday, July 21 at 18:29 (-0700), Grant said:
Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
You've not understood what I said, I think. Swap is not
On Thursday, July 21 at 18:43 (-0700), Grant said:
If I understand correctly, an out-of-memory condition that would lock
up a system without swap, will cause it to thrash with swap. A remote
system of mine was locked up for many hours due to running out of
memory without swap. If I had
So with KeepAlive on, the same apache2 process serves the page itself
and all associated files?
That's my understanding, but i'm not sure if its what i've read over
the years or just assumed.
The way I think it worked is;
- one apache process running as root, listening on port 80;
- once a
- so when using persistence, the same user apache process handles all
the gets until it hits a client or user imposed limit,
That should have been client or server imposed limit
So with KeepAlive on, the same apache2 process serves the page itself
and all associated files?
That's my understanding, but i'm not sure if its what i've read over
the years or just assumed.
The way I think it worked is;
- one apache process running as root, listening on port 80;
- once
Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
You've not understood what I said, I think. Swap is not useful as
filesystem cache. Swap is as efficient
Assuming you have the concept right, if I have 'MaxClients 50' and
'MaxSpareServers 10', there should never be more than 60 apache2
processes running and I should be able to serve up to 50 simultaneous
TCP sessions?
I'd guess it wouldnt go past 50.
Can anyone explain why I have 20 apache2
On Thursday, July 21 at 20:07 (-0700), Grant said:
Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
You've not understood what I said, I think. Swap is
Grant wrote:
Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
You've not understood what I said, I think. Swap is not useful as
filesystem cache. Swap is
Dale wrote:
Grant wrote:
Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
You've not understood what I said, I think. Swap is not useful as
filesystem cache.
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is mysqld invoked oom-killer. I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so I
suppose I should activate
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote:
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is mysqld invoked oom-killer. I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read
On Wednesday 20 July 2011 13:30:05 Grant did opine thusly:
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is mysqld invoked oom-killer. I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based
on something I read previously
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is mysqld invoked oom-killer. I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so I
suppose I should
Does it sound like apache2 was using up all the memory? If so, should
I look further for a catalyst or did this likely happen slowly? What
can I do to prevent it from happening again? Should I switch apache2
from prefork to threads?
Do you need the full 256 instances?
How many
On 7/20/2011 4:08 PM, Grant wrote:
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is mysqld invoked oom-killer. I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read previously that I later found out was
The easiest thing to try is to turn off keepalives so child processes
aren't hanging around keeping connections up.
KeepAliveTimeout defaults to 5 seconds, so that shouldn't be a
significant problem, and you get the efficiency of persistence and
probably pipelining too.
Could be worth
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:54 PM, kashani kashani-l...@badapple.net wrote:
On 7/20/2011 4:08 PM, Grant wrote:
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is mysqld invoked oom-killer. I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't
87 matches
Mail list logo
