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
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
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
> 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
|
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
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
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
>