Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote: If your system is spending a lot of time moving data to and from swap when it is not memory-starved, or if it is stalling memory allocations that it should be able to fulfill from free RAM, that's a concern. That is exactly it. I emphaises th words when it is not memory-starved . It isn't memory starved. Also I get 150Mb frequently of swap disk space, whilst still having a complete third of my memory free!! I can understand everyones view on this, that the swap algorithim is swaping pre-emtively. But 150MB?? Is that what is called a low level of swaping?? From the set of applications you listed, 150 MB doesn't even sound all that much. 300MB-400MB is the footprint I'd expect for that. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) Gerencia de Operacoes Divisao de Comunicacao de Dados Coordenacao de Seguranca VIVO Centro Oeste Norte Fones: 55-61-313-7654/Cel: 55-61-9618-0904 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Outros: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Weiner's Law of Libraries: There are no answers, only cross references. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
Shawn wrote: On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 02:21, Terry Lambert wrote: You probably can't get away with the old gcc, since the binary format changed For No Good Reason(tm). Didn't the GNU people say they had to change it to be more ABI compliant with the 'standard'? I will believe that when they upgrade their FORTRAN compiler to be more compliant with 'the standard'. Some standards are not worth complying with; I still have yet to see anyone tell me exactly what the practical benefit of doing this is. It's like the ELF standard instead of a.out; I was very much in favor of the change-over because it was supposed to let us have section attribution and multiple text and data segements that got loaded in the same executable. Is your FreeBSD kernel capable of defragging kernel memory to permit large contiguaous allocations for a device driver like the BT848 to happen well after boot time? Mine isn't. Is your FreeBSD kernel capable of dicarding the code and data for the probe routines that are not currently being executed and are not used in the common operational case? Mine isn't. Is your FreeBSD kernel capable of paging out any kernel page that's not in the paging path, so that if you, for example, have sound hardware and aren't using your sound driver, you have the ability to use the physical memory to instead open more sockets? Mine isn't. Is your FreeBSD kernel capable of loading *only* the probe code for a device, and, if it doesn't probe as being there, never loading the rest of the device driver and cotributing to KVA fragmentation? Mine isn't. Does your system have a libc.so linked against a libresolv.so that's totally seperate so that you can pull in new libraries from ISC whenever you need to do that the name lookups aren't serialized and make your Netscape slow? Mine doesn't. Is your entire system linked shared? Well, mine is. 8-). But it was under a.out, too. ELF promised a lot of things that never ended up having any practical value beyond what we already had with a.out, which was one BSS, one TEXT, and one DATA: just like before ELF. So what exactly is being promised by being more standards compliant in this particular instance? I can tell you what isn't: binaries are larger and compilation is slower than in previous releases; keeping up with GCC feels like running further and deeper into a swamp filled with molasses. Yeah, it's nice that we support 64 bit architectures (sorta) now, but that particular feature didn't need the binary format changed. Does anyone else ever suspect that some standards are written to cripple your competition, if they are stupid enough to fully comply with them? -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote: It is simply swapping when it shouldn't. Opening Mozilla, Opera, Netscape, DrJava, jEdit, Emacs, PrBoom, XBubbles, and Nautilus at the same time on a 233Mhz machine should fill up the memory (160Mb) but instead it has decided to use the swap disk for a measly 50Mb which I do have in RAM!! Please google for the phrase write through cache. GG. -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote: dude, I have a third of my memory free!! Dude, there's a difference between free and available. Dude, what makes you think that the swap in use doesn't refer to pages that are also in main memory, but marked clean because they've already been written to a backing store, but can be instantly reactivated in main memory without reading from swap? Dude, why do you thing FreeBSD is ever reading from swap at all when you are in this situation, and is not just writing it, in case you have a demand spike for memory so it can satisfy it immediately, instead of having to futz around with delaying your request until it can write the dirty things in main memory to swap? Dude, have you ever been through a drive through or even in line inside at a fast food place like Wendy's, where they send order takers into the line to proactively take your orders, so that all you have to do when you get to the front of the line is hand them your order ticket, instead of stating your order and delaying the whole line behind you by however long they were already delayed plus the time it takes you to give them your order? Dude, have you ever heard of queueing theory or have you ever google'd for pool retention time and latency in the same query? Dude, stop saying dude. 8-) 8-). There are good reasons that FreeBSD acts the way it does, and why it is more responsive under a high load than certain other OS's written by people who are at best undergraduates and at worst High school students, and never cracked open a copy of Knuth's Algorithms in their lives, let alone owned one and put it up on their bookshelf. -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
If your system is spending a lot of time moving data to and from swap when it is not memory-starved, or if it is stalling memory allocations that it should be able to fulfill from free RAM, that's a concern. That is exactly it. I emphaises th words when it is not memory-starved . It isn't memory starved. Also I get 150Mb frequently of swap disk space, whilst still having a complete third of my memory free!! I can understand everyones view on this, that the swap algorithim is swaping pre-emtively. But 150MB?? Is that what is called a low level of swaping?? _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ahmed Al-Hindawi writes : If your system is spending a lot of time moving data to and from swap when it is not memory-starved, or if it is stalling memory allocations that it should be able to fulfill from free RAM, that's a concern. That is exactly it. I emphaises th words when it is not memory-starved . It isn't memory starved. Also I get 150Mb frequently of swap disk space, whilst still having a complete third of my memory free!! I can understand everyones view on this, that the swap algorithim is swaping pre-emtively. But 150MB?? Is that what is called a low level of swaping?? Programs like cp(1) uses mmap(2) to copy things, so if you cp(1) a big file, it is not uncommon for some programs to end up on swap. Until they are used again, they will not get paged in. I often see the getty's for the vty's and similar junk on my swap space. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
thanks for all the help guys, I appreciate it. And sorry for using the word dude; I got a little agitated because people always expact them selves to be superior than youself because you are the one asking the question and they are answering!! Thanks anyway _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 11:22:00PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: Shawn wrote: On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 02:21, Terry Lambert wrote: You probably can't get away with the old gcc, since the binary format changed For No Good Reason(tm). Didn't the GNU people say they had to change it to be more ABI compliant with the 'standard'? I will believe that when they upgrade their FORTRAN compiler to be more compliant with 'the standard'. The gcc-g95 developers have begun the merge of the Fortran 95 front end and runtime library into the tree-ssa branch of GCC. The target is to have a Fortran compiler that complies with ISO/IEC 1539-1:1997 include in gcc-3.5.0. BTW, the official name of the language is Fortran not FORTRAN. -- Steve ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 10:04 +0200:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ahmed Al-Hindawi writes
Programs like cp(1) uses mmap(2) to copy things, so if you cp(1) a big
file, it is not uncommon for some programs to end up on swap. Until they
Only for files up to 8megs in size. I was meaning to ask if we should
incrase this limit.
line 136 of src/bin/cp/utils.c:
if (S_ISREG(fs-st_mode) fs-st_size = 8 * 1048576) {
are used again, they will not get paged in. I often see the getty's for
the vty's and similar junk on my swap space.
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
Jeremy Messenger wrote: Well, the 5.0, old -CURRENT and 4.8 have never touch the swap, until 5.1- CURRENT. My system has 256mb ram and it's always touch swap now. If I compile some stuff, sometime it will get around 300mb swap. Current, I only have Gnome 2.3.x and Opera running, so what my top looks like this: The new gcc is a pig. So is the new Gnome. What if you install the old Gnome from 5.0 on your system? You probably can't get away with the old gcc, since the binary format changed For No Good Reason(tm). -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
Jeremy Messenger wrote: Well, it still should not touch the swap since I have very few stuff running with 256mb ram. I just reboot and start with Gnome 2.3.x and Opera, then doing the update (compile/install) gnome-panel. Now, it's already use the swap in minutes and later hours I will get more mbs or swap. 1) He's running Gnome 2.2, not 2.3.x 2) The version is probably less important than the compiler that was used to compile it 3) Start looking at free memory with only the kernel being different between the tests, instead of changing all sorts of variabls at once, or you'll never convince anyone that what you think is the problem is actually the problem -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
Jeremy Messenger wrote: Well, the 5.0, old -CURRENT and 4.8 have never touch the swap, until 5.1- CURRENT. My system has 256mb ram and it's always touch swap now. If I compile some stuff, sometime it will get around 300mb swap. Current, I only have Gnome 2.3.x and Opera running, so what my top looks like this: Mem: 85M Active, 29M Inact, 51M Wired, 4496K Cache, 35M Buf, 73M Free Swap: 512M Total, 79M Used, 433M Free, 15% Inuse But, I will remove the Gnome System Monitor applet, then reboot and see how it goes for the whole afternoon. People, swap is just a backing store for idle data. If you have 79 Mb that isn't getting used, what would you prefer: to keep it swap-backed so you can throw the pages out on demand, or *wait* until your system is heavily loaded to put the pages on the swap? Anyway, placing data on the swap is not a problem. What is a problem is what some call swapping: reading and writing to the swap all the time. Start a vmstat 1 and see if pi and po have non-zero values constantly. If not, then your system is _not_ wasting time writing and reading to the disk. (btw, unless you have disk activity, writing data to the swap does not impact on performance either) -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) Gerencia de Operacoes Divisao de Comunicacao de Dados Coordenacao de Seguranca VIVO Centro Oeste Norte Fones: 55-61-313-7654/Cel: 55-61-9618-0904 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Outros: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ever feel like life was a game and you had the wrong instruction book? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 02:21, Terry Lambert wrote: You probably can't get away with the old gcc, since the binary format changed For No Good Reason(tm). Didn't the GNU people say they had to change it to be more ABI compliant with the 'standard'? -- Shawn [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://drevil.warpcore.org/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
hi, I recompiled my kernel yesterday and that game me an entire 4Mb more...WOW!! sarcasim killed the cat, but anyway. A debug option, *NOT THE* degug option, in the config file of the kernel was activated so I commented the line out and I got an extra 4Mb !! WOW. It was this line: Options INVARIANT_SUPPORT #extra sanity checks I don't have the internet setup on my bsd machine because my dad likes AOL, so I can't send a bug to the freeBSD team. Sorry!! _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
This is not the problem. We know what is the purpose of swap data. It is swaping when there is more than suffiecient memory to do so. There is disk activity on the swap disk (I have a seperate disk for faster access) even when there is enough memory to suit my request and more. It is simply swapping when it shouldn't. Opening Mozilla, Opera, Netscape, DrJava, jEdit, Emacs, PrBoom, XBubbles, and Nautilus at the same time on a 233Mhz machine should fill up the memory (160Mb) but instead it has decided to use the swap disk for a measly 50Mb which I do have in RAM!! _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote: This is not the problem. We know what is the purpose of swap data. It is swaping when there is more than suffiecient memory to do so. There is disk activity on the swap disk (I have a seperate disk for faster access) even when there is enough memory to suit my request and more. It is simply swapping when it shouldn't. Opening Mozilla, Opera, Netscape, DrJava, jEdit, Emacs, PrBoom, XBubbles, and Nautilus at the same time on a 233Mhz machine should fill up the memory (160Mb) but instead it has decided to use the swap disk for a measly 50Mb which I do have in RAM!! You *ARE* measuring this with FreeBSD's top(1), right? Linux has different semantics for memory, so things it thinks are free are actually in use on FreeBSD, and most monitor programs are written with Linux semantics in mind. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) Gerencia de Operacoes Divisao de Comunicacao de Dados Coordenacao de Seguranca VIVO Centro Oeste Norte Fones: 55-61-313-7654/Cel: 55-61-9618-0904 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Outros: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just when you get really good at something, you don't need to do it anymore. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote: This is not the problem. We know what is the purpose of swap data. It is swaping when there is more than suffiecient memory to do so. There is disk activity on the swap disk (I have a seperate disk for faster access) even when there is enough memory to suit my request and more. It is simply swapping when it shouldn't. Opening Mozilla, Opera, Netscape, DrJava, jEdit, Emacs, PrBoom, XBubbles, and Nautilus at the same time on a 233Mhz machine should fill up the memory (160Mb) but instead it has decided to use the swap disk for a measly 50Mb which I do have in RAM!! This is definitely an FAQ. In short, FreeBSD manages swap space differently than does Linux or other systems. In particular, FreeBSD will copy data to swap preemptively in order to fulfill future memory requests more quickly. (By copying the data to swap now in the background, it can avoid stalling a future memory request because those blocks can simply be reallocated without waiting on the disk at the time the request is made.) If your system is spending a lot of time moving data to and from swap when it is not memory-starved, or if it is stalling memory allocations that it should be able to fulfill from free RAM, that's a concern. Otherwise, it is perfectly normal and expected to see a low level of swap activity even when memory is not completely full. Tim Kientzle ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
dude, I have a third of my memory free!! _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 15:00, Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote: dude, I have a third of my memory free!! Please read the following: http://www.daemonnews.org/21/freebsd_vm.html The above will give great indepth examples of how one version (I assume it's still the same roughly) of the FreeBSD VM works. -- Shawn [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://drevil.warpcore.org/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote: dude, I have a third of my memory free!! does vmstat agree? is kernel/userland in sync? -- Matthias Buelow; [EMAIL PROTECTED],informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de} ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote: Hi, I have 160Mb of SDRAM (PC100) on a 233Mhz CyrixInstead machine and I seem to have memory mangament problems. The BIOS indicates I have 160, so does the BSD bootstrap program. When I launch GNOME 2.2 everythings is good as gold untill I open the System monitor program. It says that I have 149 Mb of RAM which is fine ( 4Mb of video..and the rest...god knows). I open every program I have and after 107Mb the machine starts to swap with about 50Mb left unused!! I recompliled the GENERIC kernal for the sake of it really (Im still an amature) I didn't mess with the configuration files or anything (I just don't know how!!). Is this normal or mismanagement of memory in the 5.1 version of the excellent FreeBSD kernel?? The mistake is in the way the Gnome System Monitor display the free memory. I just watched both 'top' and the System Monitor as I opened program after program until the system started swapping, and System monitor reports almost 100M free while top reported less than 10M. To _always_ have a little memory free is A Good Thing(tm). FreeBSD has some pretty advanced memory management that will start swapping _before_ the system runs out of RAM. However, the System Monitor's display of this is simply inaccurate. There was NOT 100M free when it started swapping on my system. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:53:21 -0400, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote: Hi, I have 160Mb of SDRAM (PC100) on a 233Mhz CyrixInstead machine and I seem to have memory mangament problems. The BIOS indicates I have 160, so does the BSD bootstrap program. When I launch GNOME 2.2 everythings is good as gold untill I open the System monitor program. It says that I have 149 Mb of RAM which is fine ( 4Mb of video..and the rest...god knows). I open every program I have and after 107Mb the machine starts to swap with about 50Mb left unused!! I recompliled the GENERIC kernal for the sake of it really (Im still an amature) I didn't mess with the configuration files or anything (I just don't know how!!). Is this normal or mismanagement of memory in the 5.1 version of the excellent FreeBSD kernel?? The mistake is in the way the Gnome System Monitor display the free memory. I just watched both 'top' and the System Monitor as I opened program after program until the system started swapping, and System monitor reports almost 100M free while top reported less than 10M. To _always_ have a little memory free is A Good Thing(tm). FreeBSD has some pretty advanced memory management that will start swapping _before_ the system runs out of RAM. However, the System Monitor's display of this is simply inaccurate. There was NOT 100M free when it started swapping on my system. Well, the 5.0, old -CURRENT and 4.8 have never touch the swap, until 5.1- CURRENT. My system has 256mb ram and it's always touch swap now. If I compile some stuff, sometime it will get around 300mb swap. Current, I only have Gnome 2.3.x and Opera running, so what my top looks like this: Mem: 85M Active, 29M Inact, 51M Wired, 4496K Cache, 35M Buf, 73M Free Swap: 512M Total, 79M Used, 433M Free, 15% Inuse But, I will remove the Gnome System Monitor applet, then reboot and see how it goes for the whole afternoon. Cheers, Mezz -- bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
Jeremy Messenger wrote: On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:53:21 -0400, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote: Hi, I have 160Mb of SDRAM (PC100) on a 233Mhz CyrixInstead machine and I seem to have memory mangament problems. The BIOS indicates I have 160, so does the BSD bootstrap program. When I launch GNOME 2.2 everythings is good as gold untill I open the System monitor program. It says that I have 149 Mb of RAM which is fine ( 4Mb of video..and the rest...god knows). I open every program I have and after 107Mb the machine starts to swap with about 50Mb left unused!! I recompliled the GENERIC kernal for the sake of it really (Im still an amature) I didn't mess with the configuration files or anything (I just don't know how!!). Is this normal or mismanagement of memory in the 5.1 version of the excellent FreeBSD kernel?? The mistake is in the way the Gnome System Monitor display the free memory. I just watched both 'top' and the System Monitor as I opened program after program until the system started swapping, and System monitor reports almost 100M free while top reported less than 10M. To _always_ have a little memory free is A Good Thing(tm). FreeBSD has some pretty advanced memory management that will start swapping _before_ the system runs out of RAM. However, the System Monitor's display of this is simply inaccurate. There was NOT 100M free when it started swapping on my system. Well, the 5.0, old -CURRENT and 4.8 have never touch the swap, until 5.1- CURRENT. My system has 256mb ram and it's always touch swap now. If I compile some stuff, sometime it will get around 300mb swap. Current, I only have Gnome 2.3.x and Opera running, so what my top looks like this: Well, the old YMMV applies, but I'm not seeing this kind of behaviour. I'm also not running 5.1-CURRENT, but 5.1-RELEASE, so it may be a newly introduced problem. The original poster didn't specify whether he was using -CURRENT or 5.1-RELEASE. Mem: 85M Active, 29M Inact, 51M Wired, 4496K Cache, 35M Buf, 73M Free Swap: 512M Total, 79M Used, 433M Free, 15% Inuse Did something use most of the memory up to start the system swapping? If it started using swap while there was still 73M free, then that's new to me. But, I will remove the Gnome System Monitor applet, then reboot and see how it goes for the whole afternoon. I'm not saying that Gnome System Monitor is causing the problem, I'm just saying that it reports inaccurate numbers. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:46:12 -0400, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeremy Messenger wrote: On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:53:21 -0400, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote: Hi, I have 160Mb of SDRAM (PC100) on a 233Mhz CyrixInstead machine and I seem to have memory mangament problems. The BIOS indicates I have 160, so does the BSD bootstrap program. When I launch GNOME 2.2 everythings is good as gold untill I open the System monitor program. It says that I have 149 Mb of RAM which is fine ( 4Mb of video..and the rest...god knows). I open every program I have and after 107Mb the machine starts to swap with about 50Mb left unused!! I recompliled the GENERIC kernal for the sake of it really (Im still an amature) I didn't mess with the configuration files or anything (I just don't know how!!). Is this normal or mismanagement of memory in the 5.1 version of the excellent FreeBSD kernel?? The mistake is in the way the Gnome System Monitor display the free memory. I just watched both 'top' and the System Monitor as I opened program after program until the system started swapping, and System monitor reports almost 100M free while top reported less than 10M. To _always_ have a little memory free is A Good Thing(tm). FreeBSD has some pretty advanced memory management that will start swapping _before_ the system runs out of RAM. However, the System Monitor's display of this is simply inaccurate. There was NOT 100M free when it started swapping on my system. Well, the 5.0, old -CURRENT and 4.8 have never touch the swap, until 5.1-CURRENT. My system has 256mb ram and it's always touch swap now. If I compile some stuff, sometime it will get around 300mb swap. Current, I only have Gnome 2.3.x and Opera running, so what my top looks like this: Well, the old YMMV applies, but I'm not seeing this kind of behaviour. I'm also not running 5.1-CURRENT, but 5.1-RELEASE, so it may be a newly introduced problem. The original poster didn't specify whether he was using -CURRENT or 5.1-RELEASE. It's in the subject, he said that he has 5.1-RELEASE. Mine is... === # uname -a FreeBSD mezz.mezzweb.com 5.1-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #0: Fri Jul 18 18:43:42 CDT 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/BSDRULZ i386 === I am planning to CVSup and do the another update of -CURRENT sometime this weekend. Mem: 85M Active, 29M Inact, 51M Wired, 4496K Cache, 35M Buf, 73M Free Swap: 512M Total, 79M Used, 433M Free, 15% Inuse Did something use most of the memory up to start the system swapping? If it started using swap while there was still 73M free, then that's new to me. Well, it still should not touch the swap since I have very few stuff running with 256mb ram. I just reboot and start with Gnome 2.3.x and Opera, then doing the update (compile/install) gnome-panel. Now, it's already use the swap in minutes and later hours I will get more mbs or swap. === last pid: 69694; load averages: 0.30, 0.73, 0.54up 0+00:26:23 15:56:49 49 processes: 2 running, 47 sleeping CPU states: 25.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 75.0% idle Mem: 123M Active, 21M Inact, 41M Wired, 5776K Cache, 35M Buf, 53M Free Swap: 512M Total, 3M Used, 512M Free === Cheers, Mezz But, I will remove the Gnome System Monitor applet, then reboot and see how it goes for the whole afternoon. I'm not saying that Gnome System Monitor is causing the problem, I'm just saying that it reports inaccurate numbers. -- bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
