Re: swapfile query
In message <201708210241.v7l2ftcf073...@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net>, Jamie La ndeg-Jones writes: > > 3. should total swap be 1x 2x or some other multiple of RAM these days? > > According to tuning(7) : > > | SYSTEM SETUP - DISKLABEL, NEWFS, TUNEFS, SWAP > | The swap partition should typically be approximately 2x the size of > | main memory for systems with less than 4GB of RAM, or approximately > | equal to the size of main memory if you have more. Keep in mind > | future memory expansion when sizing the swap partition. Generally that's the current recommendation today. It used to be 4x RAM on SunOS and other "early" UNIX in the 90's and as workloads became less time sharing oriented and more OLTP and DBMS oriented the recommendations have shifted to more RAM with less swap (imagine a database swapping). Typically this is a good starting point and generally a sound recommendation. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert FreeBSD UNIX: Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
> 3. should total swap be 1x 2x or some other multiple of RAM these days? According to tuning(7) : | SYSTEM SETUP - DISKLABEL, NEWFS, TUNEFS, SWAP | The swap partition should typically be approximately 2x the size of | main memory for systems with less than 4GB of RAM, or approximately | equal to the size of main memory if you have more. Keep in mind | future memory expansion when sizing the swap partition. cheers, Jamie ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
Am 20.08.17 um 01:39 schrieb Greg 'groggy' Lehey: >> 3. should total swap be 1x 2x or some other multiple of RAM these days? > > It never needed to be. The only issue is that if you want processor > dumps, you once needed a swap partition (and not a swap file) at least > marginally larger than memory. With compressed dumps, that > requirement is relaxed, but I suspect that a 4 GB partition could be > too small. Well, no, it (2x RAM) used to be needed at a time ... ;-) The VAX supported paging, but did not use a multi-level page table as most CPUs do today. There was a linear list of page addresses per process, and new page allocations could lead to a situation, where there was no free space in this list. This required a kind of garbage collection run, which was implemented by swapping out all processes and starting with a clean state. This required 2 times RAM configured as swap, to prevent a dead-lock (when a new page needed to be allocated to complete the swap-out). This MMU was used in at least all VAX 11-7xx, the µVAX 2 and µVAX 3 and thus in many of the machines used to run BSD back in the 80s ... And thus, swap of at least 2 times RAM used to be not just a best practice, but a strict requirement for stable operation of these machines. Regards, STefan ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 06:08:29 PM tech-lists wrote: > On 19/08/2017 17:54, Cy Schubert wrote: > > Then it doesn't matter if you use one or many swapfiles and deleting the 4 > > GB won't make a difference. Just add the desired swap as required. > > > > With 128 GB RAM you shouldn't be swapping anyway. If your system is you > > have more serious problems than the lack of swap. > > The system is a bhyve host. There are 9 guests, two of them are > freebsd-11-stable, the rest are ubuntu-14.04-LTS. Restarting some (but > not all) of the guests has the effect of decreasing swap usage. The > system also runs ZFS. The guests live on the ZFS filesystem. > > The OS & swap on the host are SSD and are not part of the ZFS system. > > What I'm seeing is, the host system won't touch swap for days. I guess > when the guests get busier than an as yet unknown amount, the host > starts using swap. The issue I'm having isn't so much it using swap, > it's that the used swap seemingly is not liberated after it has been > used, and I don't know exactly how to narrow it down. Note that once memory is placed in swap, it won't be pulled back in until some thread or process actually needs it. If nothing needs the memory it doesn't hurt to just leave it out on swap. It might also mean that the memory freed up by your temporary memory pressure from your guests will now be available the next time you have memory pressure so that you won't have to swap that next time. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
On 20/08/2017 08:22, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > Depends. I have vm.pageout_update_period=0 in /etc/sysctl.conf > and scan rate (sr) really does reflect the true scan rate. On > my system sr is 0 while the system is idle. > > As an aside, my system (8GB RAM) hardly ever swaps, even under > heavy memory load. Mine is: root@host:~ # sysctl vm.pageout_update_period vm.pageout_update_period: 600 root@host:~ # I'll try with a 0 setting -- J. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
On 19/08/2017 22:00, Cy Schubert wrote: > An easy way to find out is to run top, type in "w", then "o" and "swap" to > see which processes are using swap. You'll notice that the numbers won't > add up. I haven't looked at this but my guess is that there may be swap > leak. You can verify this by replacing the swapfile (add a new and remove > the old). Thanks for the tip. I need to wait (might be a few weeks) to see when it starts eating swap again, then I'll do what you suggest. I got the system from 94% swap in use to 39% by restarting some of the VMs, then I was able to swapoff/swapon to empty the swapfile. Here's a snapshot of the system in an idle state, sr is mostly above 300 procs memory pagedisks faults cpu r b w avm fre flt re pi pofr sr ad0 da0 insycs us sy id 0 0 27 189G 27G 103 0 0 077 329 0 0 74 801 1663 0 0 100 0 0 27 189G 27G38 0 0 0 0 337 0 0 93 745 1997 0 0 100 0 0 27 189G 27G 187 0 0 0 0 329 0 0 90 669 1853 0 0 100 1 0 27 189G 27G38 0 0 0 0 340 0 0 83 774 1816 0 0 100 0 0 27 189G 27G37 0 0 0 1 370 0 0 77 767 1839 0 0 100 1 0 27 189G 27G48 0 0 0 0 294 1 0 125 2239 3382 0 0 100 0 0 27 189G 27G20 0 0 0 0 329 3 0 88 651 1797 0 0 100 ^C yet mem from top shows 27GB free: last pid: 71790; load averages: 0.11, 0.09, 0.05 up 121+03:19:29 13:55:49 99 processes: 1 running, 98 sleeping CPU: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.1% system, 0.1% interrupt, 99.8% idle Mem: 769M Active, 11G Inact, 21G Laundry, 64G Wired, 924M Buf, 27G Free ARC: 60G Total, 8979M MFU, 51G MRU, 16K Anon, 153M Header, 755K Other 60G Compressed, 62G Uncompressed, 1.04:1 Ratio, 41M Overhead Swap: 4034M Total, 4034M Free thanks, -- J. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 15:38:15 -0700 Cy Schubert wrote: > In message <20170819213149.GA34140@raichu>, Mark Johnston writes: > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 02:24:19PM -0700, Cy Schubert wrote: > > > In message <201708192100.v7jl0vfk003...@slippy.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert > > > writes: > > > > > > > (On my -CURRENT laptop I see a scan rate in the hundreds on a totally > > > > idl > > e > > > > laptop and in the teens of my idle firewall. IMO this doesn't seem > > > > right, > > > > > > at least not compared to previous releases of FreeBSD or from the days > > > > wh > > en > > > > I worked on Solaris. You shouldn't see a scan rate on an idle system.) > > > > > > It appears that on an idle system with many pages in use, i.e. a laptop > > > running X and not really doing anything else, pages are scanned though > > > the > > > system is idle. This is likely an artifact of r308474. > > > > It's an intentional consequence of r254304. The page daemon performs a > > slow and steady scan of the queue of active pages and will gradually > > move unreferenced pages to the inactive queue. > > This is certainly better. > > It's probably good idea to remove scan rate from vmstat output as it's not > meaningful in the traditional sense any more. For example on a > traditionally scanning VM system (Solaris or z/OS) the number of pages > scanned per second (or unreferenced interval count -- the inverse of the > scan rate) is the first indication that you need to look at your vm > subsystem. As of r254304 rate cannot be used used as a metric any more > except when one sees it deviate wildly from previous observations. (Not > that I'm complaining.) > > See below: > > procs memory pagedisks faults cpu > r b w avm fre flt re pi pofr sr ad0 da0 insycs us > sy id > 0 0 0 3.9G 292M 4 0 0 0 193 125 0 0 434 773 588 0 > 0 100 > 1 0 0 3.9G 292M55 0 0 0 181 123 22 0 460 2467 1402 0 > 1 99 > 0 0 0 3.9G 290M 969 0 0 1 316 124 1 0 490 12571 4004 3 > 1 95 > 0 0 0 3.9G 289M 261 0 0 0 160 124 21 0 505 20426 7751 2 > 2 97 > 0 0 0 1.5G 755M 3481 0 1 1 60951 74 18 0 463 19918 6576 13 > 4 82 > > At this point I closed firefox. Pages are freed and scan rate decreases. We > now have a new normal. > > 0 0 0 1.5G 752M10 0 0 0 0 24 1 0 409 595 365 0 > 0 100 > 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 1 0 0 0 403 23 49 0 478 609 1321 0 > 1 99 > 0 0 0 1.5G 754M19 0 0 0 171 24 0 0 402 655 382 0 > 0 100 > 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 0 0 0 0 170 24 0 0 423 568 463 0 > 0 100 > 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 0 0 0 0 174 12 0 0 403 627 359 0 > 0 100 > 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 0 0 0 0 172 35 4 0 425 625 474 0 > 0 100 > 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 1 0 0 0 170 24 4 0 416 651 398 0 > 0 100 > 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 0 0 0 0 163 23 1 0 426 655 490 0 > 0 100 > 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 0 0 0 0 176 23 0 0 429 663 384 0 > 0 100 > 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 0 0 0 0 163 23 0 0 445 661 482 0 > 0 100 > > Should we consider removing scan rate from vmstat output? It doesn't really > mean anything in relation to tuning any more. > Depends. I have vm.pageout_update_period=0 in /etc/sysctl.conf and scan rate (sr) really does reflect the true scan rate. On my system sr is 0 while the system is idle. As an aside, my system (8GB RAM) hardly ever swaps, even under heavy memory load. Perhaps the output of sr could be somehow scaled based on the setting of the sysctl? Just a thought, I haven't looked at the source. -- Gary Jennejohn ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
On Saturday, 19 August 2017 at 16:00:28 +0100, tech-lists wrote: > Hello list, > > (freebsd-current is r317212 on this machine) > > I have a machine with 128GB RAM. When 12-current was installed, for some > reason the swap partition was set to 4GB. I see sometimes via top and > also via daily status reports that sometimes the machine runs out of > swap. It doesn't crash the machine though. > > I know how to add more swap with a swapfile. That's one way. It's really better to use a swap partition. If you repartition the SSD for whatever reason, you should consider creating a larger swap partition. > 1. should I make more than one swapfile, say 4x32GB or will it be ok > with one 128GB swapfile? It doesn't make any difference, but 128 GB seems excessive. You might like to try with one 32 GB swap file and see if that's enough. On my machine I have 32 GB of memory and 10 GB swap, and I don't have much of a problem with that. > 2. will the 4GB already there as swap play nice with a swapfile, or > multiple swapfiles? Or should I deactivate the 4GB swap partition > first? Yes. > 3. should total swap be 1x 2x or some other multiple of RAM these days? It never needed to be. The only issue is that if you want processor dumps, you once needed a swap partition (and not a swap file) at least marginally larger than memory. With compressed dumps, that requirement is relaxed, but I suspect that a 4 GB partition could be too small. Greg -- Sent from my desktop computer. Finger g...@freebsd.org for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: swapfile query
In message <20170819213149.GA34140@raichu>, Mark Johnston writes: > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 02:24:19PM -0700, Cy Schubert wrote: > > In message <201708192100.v7jl0vfk003...@slippy.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert > > writes: > > > > > (On my -CURRENT laptop I see a scan rate in the hundreds on a totally idl > e > > > laptop and in the teens of my idle firewall. IMO this doesn't seem right, > > > > at least not compared to previous releases of FreeBSD or from the days wh > en > > > I worked on Solaris. You shouldn't see a scan rate on an idle system.) > > > > It appears that on an idle system with many pages in use, i.e. a laptop > > running X and not really doing anything else, pages are scanned though the > > system is idle. This is likely an artifact of r308474. > > It's an intentional consequence of r254304. The page daemon performs a > slow and steady scan of the queue of active pages and will gradually > move unreferenced pages to the inactive queue. This is certainly better. It's probably good idea to remove scan rate from vmstat output as it's not meaningful in the traditional sense any more. For example on a traditionally scanning VM system (Solaris or z/OS) the number of pages scanned per second (or unreferenced interval count -- the inverse of the scan rate) is the first indication that you need to look at your vm subsystem. As of r254304 rate cannot be used used as a metric any more except when one sees it deviate wildly from previous observations. (Not that I'm complaining.) See below: procs memory pagedisks faults cpu r b w avm fre flt re pi pofr sr ad0 da0 insycs us sy id 0 0 0 3.9G 292M 4 0 0 0 193 125 0 0 434 773 588 0 0 100 1 0 0 3.9G 292M55 0 0 0 181 123 22 0 460 2467 1402 0 1 99 0 0 0 3.9G 290M 969 0 0 1 316 124 1 0 490 12571 4004 3 1 95 0 0 0 3.9G 289M 261 0 0 0 160 124 21 0 505 20426 7751 2 2 97 0 0 0 1.5G 755M 3481 0 1 1 60951 74 18 0 463 19918 6576 13 4 82 At this point I closed firefox. Pages are freed and scan rate decreases. We now have a new normal. 0 0 0 1.5G 752M10 0 0 0 0 24 1 0 409 595 365 0 0 100 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 1 0 0 0 403 23 49 0 478 609 1321 0 1 99 0 0 0 1.5G 754M19 0 0 0 171 24 0 0 402 655 382 0 0 100 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 0 0 0 0 170 24 0 0 423 568 463 0 0 100 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 0 0 0 0 174 12 0 0 403 627 359 0 0 100 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 0 0 0 0 172 35 4 0 425 625 474 0 0 100 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 1 0 0 0 170 24 4 0 416 651 398 0 0 100 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 0 0 0 0 163 23 1 0 426 655 490 0 0 100 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 0 0 0 0 176 23 0 0 429 663 384 0 0 100 0 0 0 1.5G 754M 0 0 0 0 163 23 0 0 445 661 482 0 0 100 Should we consider removing scan rate from vmstat output? It doesn't really mean anything in relation to tuning any more. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert FreeBSD UNIX: Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 02:24:19PM -0700, Cy Schubert wrote: > In message <201708192100.v7jl0vfk003...@slippy.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert > writes: > > > (On my -CURRENT laptop I see a scan rate in the hundreds on a totally idle > > laptop and in the teens of my idle firewall. IMO this doesn't seem right, > > at least not compared to previous releases of FreeBSD or from the days when > > I worked on Solaris. You shouldn't see a scan rate on an idle system.) > > It appears that on an idle system with many pages in use, i.e. a laptop > running X and not really doing anything else, pages are scanned though the > system is idle. This is likely an artifact of r308474. It's an intentional consequence of r254304. The page daemon performs a slow and steady scan of the queue of active pages and will gradually move unreferenced pages to the inactive queue. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
In message <201708192100.v7jl0vfk003...@slippy.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert writes: > (On my -CURRENT laptop I see a scan rate in the hundreds on a totally idle > laptop and in the teens of my idle firewall. IMO this doesn't seem right, > at least not compared to previous releases of FreeBSD or from the days when > I worked on Solaris. You shouldn't see a scan rate on an idle system.) It appears that on an idle system with many pages in use, i.e. a laptop running X and not really doing anything else, pages are scanned though the system is idle. This is likely an artifact of r308474. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert FreeBSD UNIX: Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
In message , tech-lists writes: > On 19/08/2017 17:54, Cy Schubert wrote: > > Then it doesn't matter if you use one or many swapfiles and deleting the 4 > > GB won't make a difference. Just add the desired swap as required. > > > > With 128 GB RAM you shouldn't be swapping anyway. If your system is you > > have more serious problems than the lack of swap. > > The system is a bhyve host. There are 9 guests, two of them are > freebsd-11-stable, the rest are ubuntu-14.04-LTS. Restarting some (but > not all) of the guests has the effect of decreasing swap usage. The > system also runs ZFS. The guests live on the ZFS filesystem. > > The OS & swap on the host are SSD and are not part of the ZFS system. > > What I'm seeing is, the host system won't touch swap for days. I guess > when the guests get busier than an as yet unknown amount, the host > starts using swap. The issue I'm having isn't so much it using swap, > it's that the used swap seemingly is not liberated after it has been > used, and I don't know exactly how to narrow it down. An easy way to find out is to run top, type in "w", then "o" and "swap" to see which processes are using swap. You'll notice that the numbers won't add up. I haven't looked at this but my guess is that there may be swap leak. You can verify this by replacing the swapfile (add a new and remove the old). Run vmstat. If the system is actively paging you will see page outs and page ins, some page reclaims, and a scan rate in the hundreds. (On my -CURRENT laptop I see a scan rate in the hundreds on a totally idle laptop and in the teens of my idle firewall. IMO this doesn't seem right, at least not compared to previous releases of FreeBSD or from the days when I worked on Solaris. You shouldn't see a scan rate on an idle system.) My rule of thumb [was] scan rate less than 200 is good or to put it another way if you're using more than 5% of your system resources ( > 5% CPU or > 5% disk I/O) paging or swapping you need more RAM. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert FreeBSD UNIX: Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
In message , David Chisnall w rites: > On 19 Aug 2017, at 17:54, Cy Schubert wrote: > > > >> 3. should total swap be 1x 2x or some other multiple of RAM these days? > > > > Depends. If you're running some kind of database server or OLTP > > application. Some vendors recommend no swap whatsoever while others > > recommend some. What does your application vendor recommend? > > The main advantage of swap these days (on machines with that sort of amount o > f RAM) is to allow you to keep some file-backed memory objects in memory in p > reference to leaked (or very cold) heap memory. Memory overcommitment and the working set of each address space determines how much and what is paged out. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert FreeBSD UNIX: Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
On 19 Aug 2017, at 17:54, Cy Schubert wrote: > >> 3. should total swap be 1x 2x or some other multiple of RAM these days? > > Depends. If you're running some kind of database server or OLTP > application. Some vendors recommend no swap whatsoever while others > recommend some. What does your application vendor recommend? The main advantage of swap these days (on machines with that sort of amount of RAM) is to allow you to keep some file-backed memory objects in memory in preference to leaked (or very cold) heap memory. David ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
On 19/08/2017 17:54, Cy Schubert wrote: > Then it doesn't matter if you use one or many swapfiles and deleting the 4 > GB won't make a difference. Just add the desired swap as required. > > With 128 GB RAM you shouldn't be swapping anyway. If your system is you > have more serious problems than the lack of swap. The system is a bhyve host. There are 9 guests, two of them are freebsd-11-stable, the rest are ubuntu-14.04-LTS. Restarting some (but not all) of the guests has the effect of decreasing swap usage. The system also runs ZFS. The guests live on the ZFS filesystem. The OS & swap on the host are SSD and are not part of the ZFS system. What I'm seeing is, the host system won't touch swap for days. I guess when the guests get busier than an as yet unknown amount, the host starts using swap. The issue I'm having isn't so much it using swap, it's that the used swap seemingly is not liberated after it has been used, and I don't know exactly how to narrow it down. thanks, -- J. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: swapfile query
In message <77fdd002-2873-eb67-c851-0127ae314...@zyxst.net>, tech-lists writes: > Hello list, > > (freebsd-current is r317212 on this machine) > > I have a machine with 128GB RAM. When 12-current was installed, for some > reason the swap partition was set to 4GB. I see sometimes via top and > also via daily status reports that sometimes the machine runs out of > swap. It doesn't crash the machine though. > > I know how to add more swap with a swapfile. My questions are: > > 1. should I make more than one swapfile, say 4x32GB or will it be ok > with one 128GB swapfile? It's better to spread the load across multiple spindles. > > 2. will the 4GB already there as swap play nice with a swapfile, or > multiple swapfiles? Or should I deactivate the 4GB swap partition first? Is the 4 GB on the same disk as another swapfile? > > 3. should total swap be 1x 2x or some other multiple of RAM these days? Depends. If you're running some kind of database server or OLTP application. Some vendors recommend no swap whatsoever while others recommend some. What does your application vendor recommend? > > FreeBSD and the swap partition reside on the same SSD. The swapfiles, if > created, will reside on this SSD. Then it doesn't matter if you use one or many swapfiles and deleting the 4 GB won't make a difference. Just add the desired swap as required. With 128 GB RAM you shouldn't be swapping anyway. If your system is you have more serious problems than the lack of swap. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert FreeBSD UNIX: Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
swapfile query
Hello list, (freebsd-current is r317212 on this machine) I have a machine with 128GB RAM. When 12-current was installed, for some reason the swap partition was set to 4GB. I see sometimes via top and also via daily status reports that sometimes the machine runs out of swap. It doesn't crash the machine though. I know how to add more swap with a swapfile. My questions are: 1. should I make more than one swapfile, say 4x32GB or will it be ok with one 128GB swapfile? 2. will the 4GB already there as swap play nice with a swapfile, or multiple swapfiles? Or should I deactivate the 4GB swap partition first? 3. should total swap be 1x 2x or some other multiple of RAM these days? FreeBSD and the swap partition reside on the same SSD. The swapfiles, if created, will reside on this SSD. thanks, -- J. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
