Which is much better than my method of learning, which involved setting up a server with just /boot, swap and / partitions...
At 30, I should have outgrown the school of hard knocks. Maybe I'm just dumb. (Note that that is NOT a question). DOH... Kev. ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Rafael S�nchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 1:24 PM Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Programmer(s)/User(s) crashing my system. > Hey Kev, I certainly appreciate your input there. I actually like this type > communication. I find that I learn a great deal. > > Again, Thanks. > > Rafael. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:10 AM > Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Programmer(s)/User(s) crashing my system. > > > > You're better off with a swap partition. Or several of them. > > > > Swap files are the domain of legacy OSes, and even there, I'd advise a > > partition holding nothing except the swap file. > > > > Double the ram is an OK rule of thumb, but it's more art than hard and > fast > > rule. Tidal's server has been up for well past 100 days now, and swap > usage > > is less than 1 meg. That's because they have a ton of RAM. They'd be > fine > > with 512, but they have well past a Gig. > > > > I'm building a very similar system now with almost 3 Gigs of RAM. And I'd > > bet money that I don't even need swap for that system. It'll be there > 'just > > in case', but it'll only be about 512Megs. I think after that it's just a > > waste of disk space, unless you're doing something that you KNOW will need > > the space. And frankly, I'd suggest adding RAM in that case anyway. With > > RAM at something like $1000 a Gig (USD for ECC) I'd say that when in > doubt, > > add RAM. Even if it doesn't solve the problem, it's just a good thing > > because you'll cache more, which will make the server more responsive. > > > > Remember to configure your kernel correctly if you have a whack of RAM. > > > > Just a thought, you might want to put in a second disk, and split up your > > heavier used partitions across more than one disk. If the system is > > thrashing, then just put /swap on the second disk (which should ideally be > > on a different controller as well). That'll be the easiest fix. > > > > I still say, move to a 2.4 kernel. Start there. In my opinion, that was > > the point where Linux moved from a hobby to an enterprise ready kernel. > And > > as lots of people have indicated, it had an ugly start with serious > Virtual > > Memory issues. To which I say ADD RAM. There is no reason to use swap. > I > > can understand having one available, but I don't understand why you'd > > actually plan to use it on a newish server. There are better places to > cut > > costs. > > > > Geez, I turned all ranty and grumpy there... I knew starching my > underwear > > was a bad idea... > > > > Kev. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "J. Rafael S�nchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:25 AM > > Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Programmer(s)/User(s) crashing my system. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Aaron J. Seigo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:39 PM > > > Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Programmer(s)/User(s) crashing my system. > > > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 13 November 2002 02:09, J. Rafael S�nchez wrote: > > > > > > I have a server that has gone past 20 CPU loads, and it hasn't > > crashed > > > > > > (RH7.2) I don't think being busy is a problem. It never has been > > for > > > > > > me, at least... > > > > > > > > > > Wow! That's good to know - I've seen cpu loads of 5 overhere and > I've > > > been > > > > > a bit concerned. Thanks. > > > > > > > > it's the concept of "graceful degradation", e.g. no matter how much > > > pressure > > > > you put on the system it should simply slow down more and more but > never > > > > actually stop. > > > > > > > > the VM has been the achiles heel for linux in reaching this goal, but > > > handling > > > > processes never really has been much of a problem. > > > > > > > > > By the way, my assumption has always been to put the swap partitions > > > where > > > > > they're best needed (/usr, /home) is this a good assumption? > > > > > > > > do you mean swap partitions or swap files? because the concept of > > "where" > > > the > > > > swap is kept really only matters if they are files. if they are > > > partitions, > > > > then relation to mounted filesystems has nothing to do (or at least > very > > > > little) with where those filesystems are mounted... > > > > > > You know, I didn't know there was a difference between swap part(s) and > > swap > > > files. Whenever I do an installation, I create (single os-linux only): > > > /dev/hda1 ==>> /, > > > /dev/hda2 ==>> extended, > > > /dev/hda5 ==>> /tmp, > > > /dev/hda6 ==>> /usr > > > /dev/hda7 ==>> /swap (the size allocated to this one, to me, has > depended > > on > > > the amount of physical mem. I usually double it - I also determine > whether > > > to make one or more partition -) > > > /dev/hda8 ==>> /home > > > /dev/hda9 ==>> /usr/local (this one depends on the purpose of the > system) > > > /dev/hda10 ==>> /var > > > > > > I create /swap "partition(s)". I'd like to know what is a swap file and > > its > > > purpose. Does the system create swap file as it needs them based on swap > > > partitions? Are they temporary files? What's their relationship in > regards > > > to the performance of a system? > > > > > > > > > Thanks Aaron. > > > Rafael. > > > > > > > > > > but you basically want your swap partitions wherever they will be fast > > to > > > > access with little contention, e.g. on their own controller and disk > if > > > > possible .... > > > > > > > > - -- > > > > Aaron J. Seigo > > > > GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 > > > > > > > > "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" > > > > - Albert Einstein > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) > > > > > > > > iD8DBQE900UI1rcusafx20MRAthsAJoCWuyUS6fwg9KVcDDbOdgGszQKjACfTz4n > > > > uygGR+durG8FB6Mh05PCEZM= > > > > =Vi2S > > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > > > > > > >
