Bart Smaalders wrote:
How much swap space is configured on this machine?
Zero. Is there any reason I would want to configure any swap space?
Yes.
In this particular case:
total: 213728k bytes allocated + 8896k reserved = 222624k used, 11416864k
available
you have 9MB of reserved memory
Joseph Mocker wrote:
Bart Smaalders wrote:
How much swap space is configured on this machine?
Zero. Is there any reason I would want to configure any swap space?
--joe
Well, if you want to allocate 500 MB in /tmp, and your machine
has no swap, you need 500M of physical memory or the
Bart Smaalders wrote:
...
I just swap on a zvol w/ my ZFS root machine.
I haven't been watching...what's the current status of using
ZFS for swap/dump?
Is a/the swap solution to use mkswap and then specify that file
in vfstab?
Darren
___
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 12:44:16AM +0800, Darren Reed wrote:
Bart Smaalders wrote:
I just swap on a zvol w/ my ZFS root machine.
I haven't been watching...what's the current status of using
ZFS for swap/dump?
Is a/the swap solution to use mkswap and then specify that file
in vfstab?
Bart Smaalders wrote:
Joseph Mocker wrote:
Bart Smaalders wrote:
How much swap space is configured on this machine?
Zero. Is there any reason I would want to configure any swap space?
--joe
Well, if you want to allocate 500 MB in /tmp, and your machine
has no swap, you need 500M of
We've kind of side tracked, but Yes, I do understand the limitations of
running without swap. However, in the interest of performance, I, and in
fact my whole organization which runs about 300 servers, disable swap.
We've never had an out of memory problem in the past because of kernel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've kind of side tracked, but Yes, I do understand the limitations of
running without swap. However, in the interest of performance, I, and in
fact my whole organization which runs about 300 servers, disable swap.
We've never had an out of memory problem in the past
Bill Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 12:44:16AM +0800, Darren Reed wrote:
Bart Smaalders wrote:
I just swap on a zvol w/ my ZFS root machine.
I haven't been watching...what's the current status of using
ZFS for swap/dump?
Is a/the swap solution to
I need to read through this more thoroughly to get my head around it, but
on my first pass, what jumps out at me is that something significant
_changed_ in terms of application behavior with the introduction of ZFS.
I'm saying that that is a bad thing, or a good thing, but it is an
important
Are you trying to convince me that having applications/application data
occasionally swapped out to disk is actually faster than keeping it all
in memory?
Yes. Having more memory available generally causes the
system to be a faster.
I have another box, which I LU'd to U1 a while ago. Its
I just ran:
[EMAIL PROTECTED](129): mkfile 5000M f3
Could not set length of f3: No space left on device
Which fails in anon_resvmem:
dtrace -n fbt::anon_resvmem:return/arg1==0/[EMAIL PROTECTED](20)]=count()}
tmpfs`tmp_resv+0x50
tmpfs`wrtmp+0x28c
Ah ha. Interesting procedure and bug report. This is starting to make sense.
Another interesting bug report:
6416757 zfs could still use less memory
This one is more or less the same thing I have noticed.
I guess I'll add some swap for the short term. :-(
--joe
Roch wrote:
I just ran:
Joseph Mocker wrote:
...
Anyways, I found the ::memstat dcmd for mdb. So I gave it a spin and it
looked something like
Page SummaryPagesMB %Tot
Kernel 139650 1091 36%
So what's going on! Please help. I want my memory back!
This is essentially by design, due to the way that ZFS uses kernel
memory for caching and other stuff.
You can alleviate this somewhat by running a 64bit processor, which
has a significantly larger address space to play with.
Uhh.
There two things to note here:
1. The vast majority of the memory is being used by the ZFS cache, but
appears under 'kernel heap'. If you actually need the memory, it
_should_ be released. Under UFS, this cache appears as the 'page
cache', and users understand that it can be released
Eric,
Thanks for the explanation. I am familiar with the UFS cache and assumed
ZFS cache would have worked the same way.
However, it seems like there are a few bugs here. Here's what I see.
1. I can cause an out of memory situation by simply copying a bunch of
files between folders in a ZFS
Something I often do when I'm a little suspicious of this sort of
activity is to run something that steals vast quantities of memory...
eg: something like this:
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
int main()
{
int memsize=0;
char *input_string;
char *memory;
Bart Smaalders wrote:
How much swap space is configured on this machine?
Zero. Is there any reason I would want to configure any swap space?
--joe
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Yeah I was a little suspicious of my mkfile in tmpfs test so I went
ahead and wrote a program not so different than this one.
The results were the same. I could only allocate about 512M before
things went bad.
--joe
Nathan Kroenert wrote:
Something I often do when I'm a little suspicious
19 matches
Mail list logo
