On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 09:50:37 -0700,
Rick Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If your RAM is heavily fragmented or heavily used, the system may find
> it difficult to locate adequate contiguous RAM and spend a lot of time
> swapping things to disk and back as tasks compete for the free RAM.
On Thursday 19 June 2008, tom wrote:
>Sadly, many of us are so set in our ways and fictions
>that we are pretty much asleep at school.
Sadly, I find that is a trap I have tripped over more than once of late, which
can be embarrassing in front of all these frogs. :)
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are f
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Thursday 19 June 2008, James Kosin wrote:
[...]
Sorry, I'm a bit dated and now I've probably revealed my age.
I've been around since the first personal computers and remember when
64K was considered a LOT of memory.
James
So was I James, but heck,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 15:58:49 +,
Beartooth Sciurivore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK; but then there's something else I don't know, or don't
> understand. Does a Fedora machine do any swapping while it has memory
> left? I didn't think I had (or needed) any control at all over
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 08:57:18AM -0400, James Kosin wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 09:56:25 -0400,
> > James Kosin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Having TOO much swap space can be a detriment and not an asset.
> >>Usually, the rule of thum
On Thursday 19 June 2008, James Kosin wrote:
[...]
>Sorry, I'm a bit dated and now I've probably revealed my age.
>I've been around since the first personal computers and remember when
>64K was considered a LOT of memory.
>
>James
So was I James, but heck, I remember Pearl Harbor, about when the t
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 09:56:25 -0400,
James Kosin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having TOO much swap space can be a detriment and not an asset.
Usually, the rule of thumb I go by is allocate about 2x the amount of
physical memory installed on the system;
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 09:56:25 -0400,
James Kosin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> Having TOO much swap space can be a detriment and not an asset.
> Usually, the rule of thumb I go by is allocate about 2x the amount of
> physical memory installed on the system; for machines with < 1M. T
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 09:50 -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
> The portion of a process' code that is to be executed must be in RAM,
> along with any data structures it may need (unless they're the
> un-mmap(2)d parts of files). If there is inadequate contiguous space
> in RAM, idle processes will be sw
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 11:06 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> > OK; but then there's something else I don't know, or don't
> > understand. Does a Fedora machine do any swapping while it has
> memory
> > left? I didn't think I had (or needed) any control at all over
> swapping,
> > beyond
Beartooth Sciurivore wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:58:47 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Beartooth Sciurivore wrote:
[...]
Otoh, I've never gotten anywhere near filling up a hard drive,
except once when I had a testbed machine triple booting three different
distros. So why c
Beartooth Sciurivore wrote:
OK; but then there's something else I don't know, or don't
understand. Does a Fedora machine do any swapping while it has memory
left? I didn't think I had (or needed) any control at all over swapping,
beyond choosing how much space to afford it.
What I have see
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:58:47 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> Beartooth Sciurivore wrote:
[...]
>> Otoh, I've never gotten anywhere near filling up a hard drive,
>> except once when I had a testbed machine triple booting three different
>> distros. So why can't I at least increase
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
James Kosin wrote:
Having TOO much swap space can be a detriment and not an asset.
Usually, the rule of thumb I go by is allocate about 2x the amount of
physical memory installed on the system; for machines with < 1M.
This number will need to approach more or less
James Kosin wrote:
Having TOO much swap space can be a detriment and not an asset.
Usually, the rule of thumb I go by is allocate about 2x the amount of
physical memory installed on the system; for machines with < 1M. This
number will need to approach more or less 1x for machines with 1-2M.
Beartooth Sciurivore wrote:
Every new computer I've yet had has begun slowing down soon after
I get it -- probably because I keep several browsers open, with from
several to many tabs each. I've learned long since to make sure each
machine has all the memory it can handle from the git-go, befo
Beartooth Sciurivore wrote:
Every new computer I've yet had has begun slowing down soon after
I get it -- probably because I keep several browsers open, with from
several to many tabs each. I've learned long since to make sure each
machine has all the memory it can handle from the git-go, befo
Every new computer I've yet had has begun slowing down soon after
I get it -- probably because I keep several browsers open, with from
several to many tabs each. I've learned long since to make sure each
machine has all the memory it can handle from the git-go, before it ever
reaches m
18 matches
Mail list logo
