unfortunately..the ram is limited that's why it's swapping...the bottleneck is clearly i/o due to swapping
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 0 18 4735604 18564 296 1781604 131 40 134 47 1 2 9 1 84 5 0 18 4740016 19396 296 1779516 2180 2704 2180 2704 1592 290 1 3 20 76 0 18 4744236 19524 296 1777344 2408 2508 2408 2508 1731 465 2 2 13 83 0 18 4749012 20484 296 1775060 2228 2812 2228 2812 1736 386 2 3 20 76 1 17 4753764 20676 296 1772236 2260 2484 2260 2485 1551 282 1 3 4 92 0 16 4758116 21060 296 1769848 2068 2540 2068 2556 1482 245 2 2 0 97 0 15 4760316 21580 244 1768104 2176 2360 2176 2360 1471 224 0 1 32 67 1 16 4775836 21652 248 1754000 2144 2044 2144 2048 1594 282 3 6 28 63 1 14 4785060 21780 248 1746156 2108 2076 2108 2076 1562 280 2 4 27 66 0 14 4794744 21908 248 1737600 2036 2004 2036 2004 1633 332 1 4 7 88 0 15 4800868 25812 248 1732376 1928 2352 1928 2352 1548 259 1 3 11 86 0 16 4804564 26260 256 1730736 2088 2448 2100 2448 1610 317 3 2 32 64 0 17 4807864 21396 276 1728472 6616 1556 6632 1628 1679 668 2 3 6 88 1 15 4812568 21588 276 1726192 2548 3156 2548 3156 1608 267 0 2 29 69 0 16 4816436 22356 276 1724416 1996 2528 1996 2528 1506 274 0 2 32 66 0 16 4820984 23188 276 1722512 2368 3056 2368 3056 1578 261 0 3 28 70 0 16 4824856 23892 276 1721404 2340 3200 2340 3200 1516 248 0 2 31 67 1 16 4828732 25044 280 1720176 2160 3052 2160 3068 1529 248 0 2 16 82 0 15 4832256 25556 284 1718872 2228 2636 2228 2640 1489 252 1 2 38 60 0 15 4836220 26324 284 1717816 2488 3336 2488 3336 1565 310 1 2 28 70 0 14 4838240 22420 292 1717196 5848 1972 5864 1972 1487 497 1 1 38 60 0 16 4845612 23444 292 1711340 1964 2284 1964 2284 1535 254 1 4 38 57 Lot's of block programs waiting fo i/o anyway, the cricital memory that's really needed is 6 to 7 GB...so 8 GB would make it. On Dec 17, 2007 1:12 AM, Ariz Jacinto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > thanks for pointing that out, i appreciate it. > > what i really meant is to disable swap and /or the journaling-feature > (under the same assumptions that i've made earlier). > > > > > > On Dec 16, 2007 1:31 AM, Federico Sevilla III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Quoting Ariz Jacinto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > i would definitely go that way (non-journaling filesystem w/o swap) in > > order > > > to achieve better performance (assuming distributed data storage > > > redundancy is > > > already in place and the machine have lots of room for additional > > RAM). but > > > for those who haven't tried it or even thought hard about it, they'll > > think > > > you're insane :) > > > > I've used a journaling filesystem (XFS) on a machine where I also > > disabled swap and didn't have any major issues, so I'm curious about > > your above statement. Are you saying "go with non-journaling > > filesystems" for increased performance, in general, or are you saying > > "go with non-journaling filesystems if you want to run without swap" > > for increased performance? > > > > Please elaborate. > > > > Thanks. > > > > -- > > Federico Sevilla III > > F S 3 Consulting Inc. > > http://www.fs3.ph > > _________________________________________________ > > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > > [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) > > Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists > > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > > > > > _________________________________________________ > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) > Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > -- --- Kelsey Hartigan Go Registered Linux user #5998
_________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
