On 17/10/2013 17:01, RW wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:27:49 +0100
Frank Leonhardt wrote:
On 17/10/2013 15:04, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
I'm using a 72gb swap disk.
I've 10gb RAM
I get this warning:
warning: total configured swap (8960911 pages) exceeds maximum
recommended amoun
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, O. Hartmann wrote:
FF is in my case 24, too:
pkg info firefox
firefox-24.0,1
Have you done updating the ports regarding
20130929
in /usr/ports/UPDATING? I did on all boxes and on all boxes I did the
tab-stickyness is present.
Firefox 24 allows tab moves for me on both
El día Monday, October 14, 2013 a las 10:23:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann escribió:
> > I have a 10-CURRENT r255948 from October 1st, with all ports from head
> > too, rev. r328930.
> >
> > FF is version 24.0 in the r328930 ports and the tabs can be moved fine
> > with drag and drop.
> >
> > HIH
> >
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:50:48 +0200
Matthias Apitz wrote:
> El día Monday, October 14, 2013 a las 08:54:56AM +0200, O. Hartmann
> escribió:
>
> >
> > After the last major update of www/firefox to version 23 firefox
> > rejects of moving/swapping the tabs. They are static now. I do not
> > know
El día Monday, October 14, 2013 a las 08:54:56AM +0200, O. Hartmann escribió:
>
> After the last major update of www/firefox to version 23 firefox
> rejects of moving/swapping the tabs. They are static now. I do not
> know whether this has to do with the "great pixman update", because
> coincide
After the last major update of www/firefox to version 23 firefox
rejects of moving/swapping the tabs. They are static now. I do not
know whether this has to do with the "great pixman update", because
coincidentally I made bot the pixman update and the update of firefox
towards revision 23 slipped
Hi,
We've got a number of 9.x machines - just setup a new 9.1-RELEASE-p4 amd64
system, put net-snmp on it (net-snmp-5.7.2_3) - and we're getting 'weird'
results for some stats, e.g.
UCD-SNMP-MIB::ssSysInterrupts.0 = INTEGER: 1145324516 interrupts/s
UCD-SNMP-MIB::ssSwapIn.0 = INTEGER: 114532
On Sun, 26 May 2013 18:48:18 -0500
Adam Vande More wrote:
> Um, that is wrong. It is in fact the basically the point of TRIM.
> And SSD's typically use the best form of wear leveling and it's
> usually advisable to leave a bit of the drive unpartitioned/unused to
> ensure the wear leveling works
RW googlemail.com> writes:
>
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:36:42 + (UTC)
> jb wrote:
>
> > But, swapping is also a symptom, not a problem.
> > It is never a good idea to let it get to that point.
>
> No, there are thing that are better on disk than in memory. The most
> common example is tmpfs.
> > Swapping - nowdays is synonymous with "paging".
> > But its history is as follows (per Wikipedia):
>
> This is a bit Linux-centric.
> ...
> You page-out pages and swap-out processes.
>
> When FreeBSD is very short of memory it swaps-out entire process
On Wed, 29 May 2013 19:52:02 + (UTC)
jb wrote:
> RW googlemail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > BTW you mean paging, or swap use, rather that swapping. Linux
> > supports only paging, so it can be taken as read that swapping
> > means paging, but FreeBSD suppo
is synonymous with "paging".
> You say that FB supports both, Linux supports paging only.
> Well, Linux utilizes swap space as part of virtual memory.
> So, can you elaborate more on that - what is the essence of the diff, why
> should I avoid the term "swapping"
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, jb wrote:
> Well, Linux utilizes swap space as part of virtual memory.
As does every other Unix.
--
Adam Vande More
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/free
he most
> common example is tmpfs. It's much better that files left on tmpfs can
> sent to disk rather tying up physical memory indefinitely.
>
> BTW you mean paging, or swap use, rather that swapping. Linux supports
> only paging, so it can be taken as read that swapping mean
are no longer in use--is worthwhile?
>
> As a whole, TRIM is worthwhile. However when an SSD is
> overprovisioned it provides a lot of benefits. TRIM-less swap in this
> case doesn't. The PE rate of the worst MLC SSD's at this point is
> @3000 AFAIK. Given those figure
TRIM-less swap in this
case doesn't. The PE rate of the worst MLC SSD's at this point is
@3000 AFAIK. Given those figures and average desktop swap rate at my
estimation, prioritizing write endurance on an SSD is not
beneficial(especially with a SanForce). If you are swapping
contin
On Wed, 29 May 2013, Michael Sierchio wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Adam Vande More wrote:
Normal dynamic wear leveling on a modern SSD will be better than
imposing an FS- backed swap for 4GB partion occupying a small fraction
of total drive space.
And you don't thin
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Adam Vande More wrote:
>
> Normal dynamic wear leveling on a modern SSD will be better than
> imposing an FS- backed swap for 4GB partion occupying a small fraction
> of total drive space.
>
>
Quite so.
- M
_
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:19 AM, jb wrote:
> - overcommitment of memory (a bluff asking to be punished by OOM killer)
No self respecting Unix has an OOM by default.
> - OOM killer
Are you suggesting FreeBSD does this crap?
> Besides, they allow sloppy/dangerous programming.
Yup, in the kernel
On Wed, 29 May 2013 13:57:22 +0200
Fred Morcos wrote:
> Linux has a sysctl variable vm.swappiness which you can set to 0 or 1
> out of 100. Not sure how to achieve the same on FreeBSD, maybe one or
> more combinations of the following?
You'll probably make things worse.
> vm.stats.vm.v_swappgso
n tmpfs can
sent to disk rather tying up physical memory indefinitely.
BTW you mean paging, or swap use, rather that swapping. Linux supports
only paging, so it can be taken as read that swapping means paging, but
FreeBSD supports both.
___
freebs
he
cache. Also note that this is extremely machine and cache-dependent. Still,
I will check the paper out :) thanks.
>
> In light of available but not implemented better VMM algos, perhaps *BSD
> and
> Linux could eliminate or reduce the need for:
> - swap space
>
I run A
avoid overhead cost in small problem sizes
relative to cache.
http://erikdemaine.org/papers/BRICS2002/paper.pdf
In light of available but not implemented better VMM algos, perhaps *BSD and
Linux could eliminate or reduce the need for:
- swap space
- swapping out RAM even if there is no lack of it
-
On 26. mai 2013, at 10:58, "M. V." wrote:
> But recently I heard from a FreeBSD expert that I shouldn't have swap
> partition for my server, and having swap partition could make my server
> unstable
Any chance this could be a simple misunderstanding?
That he object
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM, jb wrote:
> Follow up comment.
>
> It has been pointed out to me that there is Varnish software taking
> advantage
> of system VMM and swap space.
>
> Well, there are cache-oblivious algorithms that perform as well, and so
> they
>
Follow up comment.
It has been pointed out to me that there is Varnish software taking advantage
of system VMM and swap space.
Well, there are cache-oblivious algorithms that perform as well, and so they
make the above (disk access model; cache-aware model) unnecessary
(obsolete ?) and are
jb gmail.com> writes:
> M. V. yahoo.com> writes:
>> recently I heard from a FreeBSD expert that I shouldn't have
>> swap partition for my server, and having swap partition could
>> make my server unstable.
> I think your FB expert was up to something.
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> Which part?
This part: "Another problem with SSDs is that they can have
difficulty with wear leveling." Do as I suggested and you'll get
maximum life from the drive even with swap present. Even absent of
best practices
On Sun, 26 May 2013, Adam Vande More wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Warren Block wrote:
Another problem with SSDs is that they can have difficulty with wear
leveling. This is even worse with swap because there is no way to use TRIM
to tell the SSD about blocks that have been freed
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> Another problem with SSDs is that they can have difficulty with wear
> leveling. This is even worse with swap because there is no way to use TRIM
> to tell the SSD about blocks that have been freed.
Um, that is wrong. It is in
On Sun, 26 May 2013, Polytropon wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:09:06 +0700, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
"M. V." wrote:
I have a 24/7 network server/gateway with FreeBSD-8.2 on a SSD drive.
it's partitioned as normal (/ , /tmp, /var
The Intel SLC mSATA drives I use in embedded devices don't support TRIM,
but - it doesn't seem to matter. Actually, I'm confident that just using
bare partitions for swap is fine, and I haven't had any of the trouble I
witnessed with MLC devices. The difference is that th
M. V. yahoo.com> writes:
>
> hi everyone,
>
> I have a 24/7 network server/gateway with FreeBSD-8.2 on a SSD drive. it's
partitioned as normal (/ , /tmp,
> /var , /usr and swap) for a long time now. But recently I heard from a
FreeBSD expert that I shouldn't have
&g
On 26/05/2013 09:58, M. V. wrote:
> hi everyone,
>
> I have a 24/7 network server/gateway with FreeBSD-8.2 on a SSD drive. it's
> partitioned as normal (/ , /tmp, /var , /usr and swap) for a long time now.
> But recently I heard from a FreeBSD expert that I shouldn't h
gt; drive. it's partitioned as normal (/ , /tmp, /var , /usr and swap)
> > for a long time now. But recently I heard from a FreeBSD expert
> > that I shouldn't have swap partition for my server, and having swap
> > partition could make my server unstable. this was so strang
On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
"M. V." wrote:
> hi everyone,
>
> I have a 24/7 network server/gateway with FreeBSD-8.2 on a SSD drive. it's
> partitioned as normal (/ , /tmp, /var , /usr and swap) for a long time now.
> But recently I heard from a F
On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:09:06 +0700, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
> "M. V." wrote:
>
> > I have a 24/7 network server/gateway with FreeBSD-8.2 on a SSD drive.
> > it's partitioned as normal (/ , /tmp, /var , /
Hi,
On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
"M. V." wrote:
> I have a 24/7 network server/gateway with FreeBSD-8.2 on a SSD drive.
> it's partitioned as normal (/ , /tmp, /var , /usr and swap) for a
> long time now. But recently I heard from a FreeBSD expert that
hi everyone,
I have a 24/7 network server/gateway with FreeBSD-8.2 on a SSD drive. it's
partitioned as normal (/ , /tmp, /var , /usr and swap) for a long time now. But
recently I heard from a FreeBSD expert that I shouldn't have swap partition for
my server, and having swap parti
> > I don't want it to use swap, because it's
> > too slow. I want the program to fail when
> > there's not enough RAM, rather than using
> > swap. How to do this?
> >
> > Is it something to do
From m.e.sanlit...@gmail.com Sun Mar 10 00:25:27 2013
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Anton Shterenlikht
wrote:
> I run a program that uses large arrays.
> I don't want it to use swap, because it's
> too slow. I want the p
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> I run a program that uses large arrays.
> I don't want it to use swap, because it's
> too slow. I want the program to fail when
> there's not enough RAM, rather than using
> swap. How to do this?
>
&
On Mar 9, 2013, at 15:55, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> I run a program that uses large arrays.
> I don't want it to use swap, because it's
> too slow. I want the program to fail when
> there's not enough RAM, rather than using
> swap. How to do this?
If it were
I run a program that uses large arrays.
I don't want it to use swap, because it's
too slow. I want the program to fail when
there's not enough RAM, rather than using
swap. How to do this?
Is it something to do with these kernel
variables:
kern.dfldsiz: 34359738368
kern.d
t no joy. I re-did the installation and
it works fine now.
Just for the purpose of explaining, when I did this
gpart add -a 4k -s 4G -t freebsd-swap -l SWAP ada0
it created swap as ada0p3, ada0p1 having been labeled as boot-loader ,
ada0p2 having been labeled as boot and ada0p4 as root. thi
haviour with GELI.
> > >
> > > Every time I boot up my computer, I get a request to enter the Encryption
> > > password for swap. swap is not encrypted and should not be asking for an
> > > encryption password.
> > >
> > > I have checked and ensure
my computer, I get a request to enter the Encryption
> > password for swap. swap is not encrypted and should not be asking for an
> > encryption password.
> >
> > I have checked and ensured that there are no providers for geli for the
> > ada0p3 partition. Any one have point
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Mike Barnard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am running FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE and I am experiencing some strange
> behaviour with GELI.
>
> Every time I boot up my computer, I get a request to enter the Encryption
> password for swap. swap is not encryp
But I'm not sure about the correct way to bring the new swap partition
> online. Do I use gmirror label, as I did when I created it? Or gmirror
> insert? Or something else. I'm using the round-robin balancing
> algorithm, if that matters.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
&g
Hi,
I'm using a ZFS mirror, and had a disc fail. I had a spare unused disc
in the case, and just switched over to that, after partitioning it
with gpart. ZFS is great, just have to say that.
But I'm not sure about the correct way to bring the new swap partition
online. Do I use gmirror
On 07/09/2012 10:14 PM, Vladislav wrote:
You can use PC-BSD installer and install FreeBSD with an encrypted ZFS
root.
Okay. :-)
David
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To un
On 11/07/2012 16:25, Joseph Lenox wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 06:55 PM, David Christensen wrote:
>> I wrote:
>> >>
>> https://www.dan.me.uk/blog/2012/05/06/full-disk-encryption-with-zfs-root-for-freebsd-9-x/
>>
>>
>> On 07/09/2012 09:43 AM, Colin Barnabas wrote:
>>> Perhaps this will help-
>>> http://ww
On 07/09/2012 06:55 PM, David Christensen wrote:
I wrote:
>>
https://www.dan.me.uk/blog/2012/05/06/full-disk-encryption-with-zfs-root-for-freebsd-9-x/
On 07/09/2012 09:43 AM, Colin Barnabas wrote:
Perhaps this will help-
http://www.aisecure.net/2011/11/28/root-zfs-freebsd9/
Thanks for the
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:55 AM, David Christensen <
dpchr...@holgerdanske.com> wrote:
Thanks for the reply. :-)
>
>
> STFW I already found various manual instructions. I'm looking for
> something easier/ simpler that is built in to the installer, similar to
> Debian and Windows. It appears Fre
I wrote:
>>
https://www.dan.me.uk/blog/2012/05/06/full-disk-encryption-with-zfs-root-for-freebsd-9-x/
On 07/09/2012 09:43 AM, Colin Barnabas wrote:
Perhaps this will help-
http://www.aisecure.net/2011/11/28/root-zfs-freebsd9/
Thanks for the reply. :-)
STFW I already found various manual
Perhaps this will help-
http://www.aisecure.net/2011/11/28/root-zfs-freebsd9/
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 07:13:05AM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> freebsd-questions:
>
> It is possible to install FreeBSD with an encrypted ZFS root and
> encrypted swap using FreeBSD-9.0-RELEAS
freebsd-questions:
It is possible to install FreeBSD with an encrypted ZFS root and
encrypted swap using FreeBSD-9.0-RELEASE-amd64-dvd1?
I'm looking for something similar to the Debian installer, which
provides disk partitioning, file system creation, mounts, LUKS, LVM, etc..
TIA,
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:48:13 +0100
RW wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:22:37 +0300
> mbsd wrote:
>
> > Hi there.
> >
> > Now I'm using FreeBSD 9 without swap, and without additional swap -
> > related configurations.
> >..
> > And the questio
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:22:37 +0300
mbsd wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> Now I'm using FreeBSD 9 without swap, and without additional swap -
> related configurations.
>..
> And the question is:
> Does it correct to use freebsd like this? Or I need specific setup?
>
> Op
Hi there.
Now I'm using FreeBSD 9 without swap, and without additional swap -
related configurations.
Ξ ~ → gpart show
=> 34 234441581 ada0 GPT (111G)
34128 1 freebsd-boot (64k)
162 234441453 2 freebsd-zfs (111G)
Ξ ~ → pstat -T
3857/12328
At 10:54 AM 5/29/2012, Warren Block wrote:
Recently I rearranged partitions on an SSD. The swap partition was
eliminated in favor of a swap file on /usr. This works, allows TRIM
support on the swap space, and is easier to resize than a partition.
However, sometimes the system panics on
Recently I rearranged partitions on an SSD. The swap partition was
eliminated in favor of a swap file on /usr. This works, allows TRIM
support on the swap space, and is easier to resize than a partition.
However, sometimes the system panics on shutdown. It happens after
"syncing disks
On 3/30/12 5:48 PM, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
After reading several sparse articles/post, I've come to the conclusion
that FreeBSD doesn't do well with SWAP> 32GB; however it does allow it.
As such I decided to drop the swap to 8GB*2=16GB. Sadly that didn't
help eit
On 03/28/12 03:09, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> It works out to roughly 7.7GB from 32MB okay fine.
> If I double it, that should give me 15.4GB from 64MB (still not enough).
> If I 16x it that should give me 246GB from 512MB. Thats more my
> physical ram + swap. Oh well.
After rea
nds it.
Fortunately it isn't used very much,
It works out to roughly 7.7GB from 32MB okay fine.
If I double it, that should give me 15.4GB from 64MB (still not enough).
If I 16x it that should give me 246GB from 512MB. Thats more my
physical ram + swap. Oh well.
I've seen John Baldwin wr
ooth kernel: swap zone exhausted, increase
> kern.maxswzone
> Mar 23 22:21:50 sabertooth kernel: pid 86697 (mysqld), uid 88, was
> killed: out of swap space
>
> how to repeat:
> $ mysql -ux < file.sql (~150GB) worth
>
> basically, it slows down continually until it di
/var/log/messages
Mar 23 22:21:50 sabertooth kernel: swap zone exhausted, increase
kern.maxswzone
Mar 23 22:21:50 sabertooth kernel: pid 86697 (mysqld), uid 88, was
killed: out of swap space
how to repeat:
$ mysql -ux < file.sql (~150GB) worth
basically, it slows down continually until it d
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Fri Feb 17 17:59:50 2012
> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:54:18 -0800
> From: Jim Pazarena
> To: FreeBSD Mailing List
> Subject: swap space
>
> is there a command which can show the size of the hard drive swap?
>
> A "df"
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Robison, Dave
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 4:11 PM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: swap space
>
> On 02/17/2012 1
On 02/17/2012 15:58, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Jim Pazarena wrote:
is there a command which can show the size of the hard drive swap?
A "df" seems to avoid the swap area.
You're looking for "swapinfo"
Regards,
Chuck beat me to it.
&quo
On Feb 17, 2012 6:55 PM, "Jim Pazarena" wrote:
>
> is there a command which can show the size of the hard drive swap?
>
> A "df" seems to avoid the swap area.
>
> This would be on a live production server.
> Thanks.
> ___
On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Jim Pazarena wrote:
> is there a command which can show the size of the hard drive swap?
>
> A "df" seems to avoid the swap area.
You're looking for "swapinfo"
Regards,
--
-Chuck
___
On 2/17/2012 6:54 PM, Jim Pazarena wrote:
> is there a command which can show the size of the hard drive swap?
>
% pstat -T
438/12328 files
98M/10240M swap space
---Mike
--
---
Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400
Sentex Communications, m...@sentex.net
Providing In
is there a command which can show the size of the hard drive swap?
A "df" seems to avoid the swap area.
This would be on a live production server.
Thanks.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listin
At 07:08 14/10/2011, Dennis Glatting wrote:
This is kind of stupid question but at a minimum I thought it would
be interesting to know.
What is the limitations in terms of swap devices under RELENG_8 (or 9)?
A single swap dev appears to be limited to 32GB (there are
truncation messages on
Dennis Glatting wrote:
> This is a proof-of-concept project ...
> I am doing it on the cheap ...
>
> I have committed to the project five machines. Three run over
> clocked Phenom II x6 processors with 16GB of RAM, 1TB disk for
> the OS, 1TB disk for Junk, and a 3-2TB disk RAIDz array ...
> These
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 10/14/2011 11:43 AM, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
On 10/14/2011 8:08 AM, Dennis Glatting wrote:
This is kind of stupid question but at a minimum I thought it would be
interesting to know.
What is the limitations in terms of swap devices under
On 10/14/2011 11:43 AM, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
On 10/14/2011 8:08 AM, Dennis Glatting wrote:
This is kind of stupid question but at a minimum I thought it would be
interesting to know.
What is the limitations in terms of swap devices under RELENG_8 (or 9)?
A single swap dev appears to be
On 10/14/2011 8:08 AM, Dennis Glatting wrote:
This is kind of stupid question but at a minimum I thought it would be
interesting to know.
What is the limitations in terms of swap devices under RELENG_8 (or 9)?
A single swap dev appears to be limited to 32GB (there are truncation
messages on
This is kind of stupid question but at a minimum I thought it would be
interesting to know.
What is the limitations in terms of swap devices under RELENG_8 (or 9)?
A single swap dev appears to be limited to 32GB (there are truncation
messages on boot). I am looking at a possible need of 2
Thanks Matthew / Michael for your responses on this.
On 9/14/2011 2:51 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 14/09/2011 18:27, Michael Sierchio wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Matthew Seaman
wrote:
... In these days of plentiful RAM, the new rule of thumb is "if you're
swapping, then you're
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:55:53 +0100
Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 14/09/2011 13:34, Jonathan Vomacka wrote:
> > Either from the FreeBSD docs, or based on personal experiences,
> > what is the recommended swap space for a 8GB system? Your opinions
> > are greatly appreciated
On 14/09/2011 18:27, Michael Sierchio wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Matthew Seaman
> wrote:
>
>> > ... In these days of plentiful RAM, the new rule of thumb is "if you're
>> > swapping, then you're doing it wrong."
> I think your response follows the excellent pedagogical principle:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Matthew Seaman
wrote:
> ... In these days of plentiful RAM, the new rule of thumb is "if you're
> swapping, then you're doing it wrong."
I think your response follows the excellent pedagogical principle: "a
little inaccuracy saves a lot of explanation." But... d
Excellent response. Thank you so much.
On Sep 14, 2011 9:56 AM, "Matthew Seaman"
wrote:
>
> On 14/09/2011 13:34, Jonathan Vomacka wrote:
> > Each operating system seems to have different documentation regarding
> > what a decent swap size is for systems with large a
On 14/09/2011 13:34, Jonathan Vomacka wrote:
> Each operating system seems to have different documentation regarding
> what a decent swap size is for systems with large amounts of RAM. My
> system only has 8GB of RAM. Some people have gone with the general idea
> that 2X the amou
Good morning all,
Each operating system seems to have different documentation regarding
what a decent swap size is for systems with large amounts of RAM. My
system only has 8GB of RAM. Some people have gone with the general idea
that 2X the amount of RAM is sufficient but for systems with
141 125
>>
>>
>> The system then completely hangs and a hardware rest is required. As the dump
>> does not seem to finish I dont get my core dump in /var/cache when the
>> machine
>> reboots.
>>
>> Any ideas??
>>
> Daryl,
> A co
gs and a hardware rest is required. As the dump
> does not seem to finish I dont get my core dump in /var/cache when the machine
> reboots.
>
> Any ideas??
>
Daryl,
A couple of questions:
1) How big is your swap partition? Is it large enough to hold the crash dump?
2) What type of
I have a FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE (64bit) system with 4G mem installed. I have
had a few kernel panics over the last few weeks and would like to capture
a core dump. I have added the following to /etc/rc.conf
dumpdev="AUTO"
dumpdir=/var/crash
The /var/crash is a 5G filesystem (with 4.8G free).
When th
On Apr 4, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Paul Chany wrote:
> I follow the link:
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/adding-swap-space.html
>
> I did create a swapfile, and run again command: '# make install clean'.
> Since thet it being running on my old Tosh
2011-04-04 21:01 keltezéssel, Chuck Swiger írta:
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Paul Chany wrote:
swap_pager: out of swap space
swap_pager_getswapspace(16): failed
..
c++: Internal error: Killed: 9 (program cc1plus)
..
..
*** Error code 1
What can I do to solve this problem
Your
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Paul Chany wrote:
> swap_pager: out of swap space
> swap_pager_getswapspace(16): failed
> ..
> c++: Internal error: Killed: 9 (program cc1plus)
> ..
> ..
> *** Error code 1
>
> What can I do to solve this problem
Your system ran out of VM.
Hi,
On FreeBSD RELEASE 8.2 I'm trying to install sudo with commands:
# cd /usr/ports/security/sudo/
# make install clean
..
swap_pager: out of swap space
swap_pager_getswapspace(16): failed
..
c++: Internal error: Killed: 9 (program cc1plus)
..
..
*** Error code 1
What can I do to solve
Well
vbox% sysctl -ad kern.maxswzone
kern.maxswzone: Maximum memory for swap metadata
man 8 loader gives:
kern.maxswzone
Limits the amount of KVM to be used to hold swap meta
information, which directly governs the maximum amount of
swa
dumped)
Feb 23 17:14:13 gold kernel: pid 10386 (epiphany), uid 0: exited on signal 11
(core dumped)
Feb 23 17:18:19 gold kernel: pid 10414 (epiphany), uid 0: exited on signal 11
(core dumped)
Feb 24 14:56:05 gold kernel: swap zone exhausted, increase kern.maxswzone
Feb 24 14:56:36 gold last message
ates back to the days when
> servers would have quantities of RAM measured in Megabytes rather than
> Gigabytes.
Of course, in those days disk space was measured in MBytes too.
>
> Also, there's a maximum of -- I think -- 8GB
> swap above which the perfo
n
Gigabytes.
2 X RAM is a lot of disk space nowadays -- so either you'll need to find
some other use for that space; eg. as a swap-backed /tmp partition,
or else provide less swap. Also, there's a maximum of -- I think -- 8GB
swap above which the performance of swap is degraded, due to algo
On 01/05/11 15:20, Gary Gatten wrote:
I will be installing 8.1 on a Dell Poweredge 2850, with dual 3 GHz XEON
processors and 6GB RAM.
What is the recommended swap space?
I'm finding conflicting data on this. Some say 0, some say 1 times RAM,
others say stay with 2 x RAM.
Definitely
Adam Vande More writes:
> > I will be installing 8.1 on a Dell Poweredge 2850, with dual 3 GHz XEON
> > processors and 6GB RAM.
> >
> > What is the recommended swap space?
>
> > I'm finding conflicting data on this. Some say 0, some say 1 times
1 - 100 of 715 matches
Mail list logo
