Andi Kleen writes:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:07:44PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> But something must have been not working with it for mmaps/shlibs
> (not executables); at least historically.
> At least I remember that all hell broke lose when you tried to update
> libc by cp'ing a new one
J. A. Magallon wrote:
>I'm not so sure it's only a 'rule of thumb'. Do not know the state of
>paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel, a page that was
>paged-out, reserves its place in swap even if it is paged-in again, so
>once you have paged-out all your ram at least once, you
J. A. Magallon wrote:
I'm not so sure it's only a 'rule of thumb'. Do not know the state of
paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel, a page that was
paged-out, reserves its place in swap even if it is paged-in again, so
once you have paged-out all your ram at least once, you can't
Andi Kleen writes:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:07:44PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
But something must have been not working with it for mmaps/shlibs
(not executables); at least historically.
At least I remember that all hell broke lose when you tried to update
libc by cp'ing a new one to
Hi,
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 01:49:16PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> >
> > So the aim is more complex. Basically, once we are short on VM, we
> > want to eliminate redundant copies of swap data. That implies two
> > possible actions, not one ---
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:07:44PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> Even more effective is:
>
> mv /wherever/exeimage /usr/bin/exeimage
>
> The kernel keeps around the contents of the old file while
> the executing process still runs.
>
> This is also basically how things like libc get
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> So the aim is more complex. Basically, once we are short on VM, we
> want to eliminate redundant copies of swap data. That implies two
> possible actions, not one --- we can either remove the swap page for
> data which is already in memory, or
Hi,
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 12:54:15PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
>
> first: Thanks for clearing this up for me.
>
> So, there are in fact some more "states" a swap-page can be in:
>
> -(0) free
> -(1) allocated, not in mem.
> -(2) on swap, valid copy of memory.
>
Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 06:14:54PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't the algorithm be:
> >
> > - If (current_access == write )
> > free (swap_page);
> > else
> > map (page, READONLY)
> >
> > and
> > when a write access happens, we
Hi,
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 06:14:54PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Shouldn't the algorithm be:
>
> - If (current_access == write )
> free (swap_page);
> else
> map (page, READONLY)
>
> and
> when a write access happens, we fault again, and map free the
> swap-page as it
Hi,
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 06:14:54PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
Shouldn't the algorithm be:
- If (current_access == write )
free (swap_page);
else
map (page, READONLY)
and
when a write access happens, we fault again, and map free the
swap-page as it is now
Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 06:14:54PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
Shouldn't the algorithm be:
- If (current_access == write )
free (swap_page);
else
map (page, READONLY)
and
when a write access happens, we fault again, and map free
Hi,
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 12:54:15PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
first: Thanks for clearing this up for me.
So, there are in fact some more states a swap-page can be in:
-(0) free
-(1) allocated, not in mem.
-(2) on swap, valid copy of memory.
-(3) on
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
So the aim is more complex. Basically, once we are short on VM, we
want to eliminate redundant copies of swap data. That implies two
possible actions, not one --- we can either remove the swap page for
data which is already in memory, or we
Hi,
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 01:49:16PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
So the aim is more complex. Basically, once we are short on VM, we
want to eliminate redundant copies of swap data. That implies two
possible actions, not one --- we can
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:07:44PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
Even more effective is:
mv /wherever/exeimage /usr/bin/exeimage
The kernel keeps around the contents of the old file while
the executing process still runs.
This is also basically how things like libc get installed.
A
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Roger Larsson wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 May 2001 02:43, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> > > Rik van Riel writes:
> > > > Then we will be scanning through memory looking for something to
> > > > swap out (otherwise we'd not be in need of
On Wednesday 02 May 2001 02:43, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Rik van Riel writes:
> > > Then we will be scanning through memory looking for something to
> > > swap out (otherwise we'd not be in need of swap space, right?).
> > > At this point we can
On Tue, 1 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> Rik van Riel writes:
> > Then we will be scanning through memory looking for something to
> > swap out (otherwise we'd not be in need of swap space, right?).
> > At this point we can simply free up swap entries while scanning
> > through memory
Rik van Riel writes:
> Then we will be scanning through memory looking for something to
> swap out (otherwise we'd not be in need of swap space, right?).
> At this point we can simply free up swap entries while scanning
> through memory looking for stuff to swap out.
Sounds a lot like my
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> The right fix is to reclaim such pages only when we need to. To
> disable swap caching when we still have enough swap free would hurt
> users who have the spare swap to cope with it.
That's easy enough. When we are:
1. almost out of swap and
2.
On 1 May 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel, a page that
> >> was paged-out, reserves its place in swap even if it is paged-in
> >> again, so once you have paged-out all your ram at least once, you
> >>
Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:12:12PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel, a page that was
> > > paged-out, reserves its place in swap even if it is paged-in again, so
> > > once you have paged-out all your ram at
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:12:12PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel, a page that was
> > paged-out, reserves its place in swap even if it is paged-in again, so
> > once you have paged-out all your ram at least once, you can't get any
> > more
Hi Alan,
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>> paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel, a page that
>> was paged-out, reserves its place in swap even if it is paged-in
>> again, so once you have paged-out all your ram at least once, you
>> can't get any more memory, even if swap
Hi Alan,
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel, a page that
was paged-out, reserves its place in swap even if it is paged-in
again, so once you have paged-out all your ram at least once, you
can't get any more memory, even if swap is
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:12:12PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel, a page that was
paged-out, reserves its place in swap even if it is paged-in again, so
once you have paged-out all your ram at least once, you can't get any
more memory,
Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:12:12PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel, a page that was
paged-out, reserves its place in swap even if it is paged-in again, so
once you have paged-out all your ram at least once,
On 1 May 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel, a page that
was paged-out, reserves its place in swap even if it is paged-in
again, so once you have paged-out all your ram at least once, you
can't get any
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
The right fix is to reclaim such pages only when we need to. To
disable swap caching when we still have enough swap free would hurt
users who have the spare swap to cope with it.
That's easy enough. When we are:
1. almost out of swap and
2. need
On Tue, 1 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
Rik van Riel writes:
Then we will be scanning through memory looking for something to
swap out (otherwise we'd not be in need of swap space, right?).
At this point we can simply free up swap entries while scanning
through memory looking for
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Roger Larsson wrote:
On Wednesday 02 May 2001 02:43, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
Rik van Riel writes:
Then we will be scanning through memory looking for something to
swap out (otherwise we'd not be in need of swap space,
Rik van Riel writes:
Then we will be scanning through memory looking for something to
swap out (otherwise we'd not be in need of swap space, right?).
At this point we can simply free up swap entries while scanning
through memory looking for stuff to swap out.
Sounds a lot like my patch
On Wednesday 02 May 2001 02:43, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
Rik van Riel writes:
Then we will be scanning through memory looking for something to
swap out (otherwise we'd not be in need of swap space, right?).
At this point we can simply free up
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:14:25PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > mv /wherever/exeimage /usr/bin/exeimage
[...]
> > This is also basically how things like libc get installed.
> > A single mv is not only preserves currently referenced contents,
> > it is atomic.
One restriction:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> Richard B. Johnson writes:
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
> > > In general, is there a safe way to replace executable files for
> > > programs that might be running while their on-disk images are
> > > replaced?
> >
> > Yes.
Richard B. Johnson writes:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
> > In general, is there a safe way to replace executable files for
> > programs that might be running while their on-disk images are
> > replaced?
>
> Yes. Perfectly safe:
>
> mv /usr/bin/exeimage
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
>
> In general, is there a safe way to replace executable files for
> programs that might be running while their on-disk images are
> replaced?
>
Yes. Perfectly safe:
mv /usr/bin/exeimage /usr/bin/exeimage.sav
cp /wherever/exeimage /usr/bin/exeimage
Kenneth Johansson wrote:
> Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> >
> > (Does Linux swap out text, by the way, he asks ignorantly?)
>
> .text is just droped and read back from the actuall file it's
> not put into the swap
Is this always true, even for init? Can init be swapped out?
In general, is
> > The swap I have is 2 partitions, one on each drive both with a priority of
> > 0. Personally, I like the way it's done on my box.
>
> So you've spent almost $200 for RAM, and refuse to spend $4 for 1Gb of
> swap space. Fine with me.
Stupid argument. Very stupid argument. Take a 16Gb
> paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel, a page that was
> paged-out, reserves its place in swap even if it is paged-in again, so
> once you have paged-out all your ram at least once, you can't get any
> more memory, even if swap is 'empty'.
This is a bug in the 2.4 VM, nothing
paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel, a page that was
paged-out, reserves its place in swap even if it is paged-in again, so
once you have paged-out all your ram at least once, you can't get any
more memory, even if swap is 'empty'.
This is a bug in the 2.4 VM, nothing more
The swap I have is 2 partitions, one on each drive both with a priority of
0. Personally, I like the way it's done on my box.
So you've spent almost $200 for RAM, and refuse to spend $4 for 1Gb of
swap space. Fine with me.
Stupid argument. Very stupid argument. Take a 16Gb server. You
Kenneth Johansson wrote:
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
(Does Linux swap out text, by the way, he asks ignorantly?)
.text is just droped and read back from the actuall file it's
not put into the swap
Is this always true, even for init? Can init be swapped out?
In general, is there a
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
In general, is there a safe way to replace executable files for
programs that might be running while their on-disk images are
replaced?
Yes. Perfectly safe:
mv /usr/bin/exeimage /usr/bin/exeimage.sav
cp /wherever/exeimage /usr/bin/exeimage
Richard B. Johnson writes:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
In general, is there a safe way to replace executable files for
programs that might be running while their on-disk images are
replaced?
Yes. Perfectly safe:
mv /usr/bin/exeimage /usr/bin/exeimage.sav
cp
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
Richard B. Johnson writes:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
In general, is there a safe way to replace executable files for
programs that might be running while their on-disk images are
replaced?
Yes. Perfectly safe:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:14:25PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
mv /wherever/exeimage /usr/bin/exeimage
[...]
This is also basically how things like libc get installed.
A single mv is not only preserves currently referenced contents,
it is atomic.
One restriction: /wherever and
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 11:40:40PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > An interesting option (though with less-than-stellar performance
> > > characteristics) would be a dynamically expanding swapfile. If you're
> > > going to be hit with swap penalties, it may be useful to not have to
> > >
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>
> (Does Linux swap out text, by the way, he asks ignorantly?)
.text is just droped and read back from the actuall file it's not put into the swap
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
(Does Linux swap out text, by the way, he asks ignorantly?)
.text is just droped and read back from the actuall file it's not put into the swap
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 11:40:40PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
An interesting option (though with less-than-stellar performance
characteristics) would be a dynamically expanding swapfile. If you're
going to be hit with swap penalties, it may be useful to not have to
pre-reserve
At 2:04 PM -0400 2001-04-28, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>It is a disaster waiting to happen. Instead of having the offending
>process get killed, your machine could suffer extreme thrashing.
>
>Have enough swap for idle processes and no more.
Let's altogether now say "working set".
(Does Linux
David Lang wrote:
> at the low end useing a bit of disk for swap doesn't hurt, I ran into a
> case a couple years ago on AIX systems. we buy them with 2G ram so that we
> don't need to swap, but discovered (the hard way) that we also needed to
> allocate 4G of disk space for those boxes
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> So that is a factor of 50 in price. It's what, a factor of 100
> in access time?
Actually it's only about 10.
> > That disk space is just sitting there. Never to be used. I spent $400
> > on the RAM, and I'm now reserving about $8 worth of disk space for
> >
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Xavier Bestel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> William T Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition limit
>
>
Rogier Wolff writes:
> Wakko Warner wrote:
>>> So you've spent almost $200 for RAM, and refuse to spend
>>> $4 for 1Gb of swap space. Fine with me.
So that is a factor of 50 in price. It's what, a factor of 100
in access time?
> That disk space is just sitting there. Never to be used. I
On 04.28 Rogier Wolff wrote:
>
> I've ALWAYS said that it's a rule-of-thumb. This means that if you
> have a good argument to do it differently, you should surely do so!
>
I'm not so sure it's only a 'rule of thumb'. Do not know the state of
paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos
Wakko Warner wrote:
> > So you've spent almost $200 for RAM, and refuse to spend $4 for 1Gb of
> > swap space. Fine with me.
> I put this much ram into the system to keep from having swap. I
> still say swap=2x ram is a stupid idea. I fail to see the logic in
> that. Disk is much much
> So you've spent almost $200 for RAM, and refuse to spend $4 for 1Gb of
> swap space. Fine with me.
I put this much ram into the system to keep from having swap. I still say
swap=2x ram is a stupid idea. I fail to see the logic in that. Disk is
much much slower than ram and if you're
Wakko Warner wrote:
> > I've always been trying to convice people that 2x RAM remains a good
> > rule-of-thumb.
>
> IMO this is pointless
>
> total used free sharedbuffers cached
> Mem:517456 505332 12124 111016 97752 236884
>
LA Walsh wrote:
> Rogier Wolff wrote:
>
> > > > On Linux any swap adds to the memory pool, so 1xRAM would be
> > > > equivalent to 2xRAM with the old old OS's.
> > >
> > > no more true AFAIK
> >
> > I've always been trying to convice people that 2x RAM remains a good
> > rule-of-thumb.
>
> ---
LA Walsh wrote:
Rogier Wolff wrote:
On Linux any swap adds to the memory pool, so 1xRAM would be
equivalent to 2xRAM with the old old OS's.
no more true AFAIK
I've always been trying to convice people that 2x RAM remains a good
rule-of-thumb.
---
Ug. I like to view
So you've spent almost $200 for RAM, and refuse to spend $4 for 1Gb of
swap space. Fine with me.
I put this much ram into the system to keep from having swap. I still say
swap=2x ram is a stupid idea. I fail to see the logic in that. Disk is
much much slower than ram and if you're writing
On 04.28 Rogier Wolff wrote:
I've ALWAYS said that it's a rule-of-thumb. This means that if you
have a good argument to do it differently, you should surely do so!
I'm not so sure it's only a 'rule of thumb'. Do not know the state of
paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel,
Rogier Wolff writes:
Wakko Warner wrote:
So you've spent almost $200 for RAM, and refuse to spend
$4 for 1Gb of swap space. Fine with me.
So that is a factor of 50 in price. It's what, a factor of 100
in access time?
That disk space is just sitting there. Never to be used. I spent
],
Xavier Bestel [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Goswin Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED],
William T Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition limit
Wakko Warner wrote:
So you've spent almost $200 for RAM, and refuse to spend $4 for 1Gb
David Lang wrote:
at the low end useing a bit of disk for swap doesn't hurt, I ran into a
case a couple years ago on AIX systems. we buy them with 2G ram so that we
don't need to swap, but discovered (the hard way) that we also needed to
allocate 4G of disk space for those boxes (allocating
At 2:04 PM -0400 2001-04-28, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
It is a disaster waiting to happen. Instead of having the offending
process get killed, your machine could suffer extreme thrashing.
Have enough swap for idle processes and no more.
Let's altogether now say working set.
(Does Linux swap out
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, LA Walsh wrote:
>
> > An interesting option (though with less-than-stellar performance
> > characteristics) would be a dynamically expanding swapfile. If you're
> > going to be hit with swap penalties, it may be useful to not have to
> >
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, LA Walsh wrote:
>
> > An interesting option (though with less-than-stellar performance
> > characteristics) would be a dynamically expanding swapfile. If you're
> > going to be hit with swap penalties, it may be useful to not
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, LA Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > An interesting option (though with less-than-stellar performance
> > > characteristics) would be a dynamically expanding swapfile. If you're
> > > going to
> I've always been trying to convice people that 2x RAM remains a good
> rule-of-thumb.
IMO this is pointless
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:517456 505332 12124 111016 97752 236884
-/+ buffers/cache: 170696
Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, LA Walsh wrote:
>
> > An interesting option (though with less-than-stellar performance
> > characteristics) would be a dynamically expanding swapfile. If you're
> > going to be hit with swap penalties, it may be useful to not have to
> >
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, LA Walsh wrote:
> An interesting option (though with less-than-stellar performance
> characteristics) would be a dynamically expanding swapfile. If you're
> going to be hit with swap penalties, it may be useful to not have to
> pre-reserve something you only hit once in
Rogier Wolff wrote:
> > > On Linux any swap adds to the memory pool, so 1xRAM would be
> > > equivalent to 2xRAM with the old old OS's.
> >
> > no more true AFAIK
>
> I've always been trying to convice people that 2x RAM remains a good
> rule-of-thumb.
---
Ug. I like to view swap as "low
Xavier Bestel wrote:
[Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> Le 08 Mar 2001 14:05:25 +0100, Goswin Brederlow a _crit :
>
> > I believe the 2xRAM rule comes from the OS's where ram was only buffer
> > for the swap. So with 1xRAM you had a running system with 1xRAM
> > memory, so
Le 08 Mar 2001 14:05:25 +0100, Goswin Brederlow a écrit :
> I believe the 2xRAM rule comes from the OS's where ram was only buffer
> for the swap. So with 1xRAM you had a running system with 1xRAM
> memory, so nothing is gained by that much swap.
I think kernels 2.4.x came back to this
> " " == Rogier Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> William T Wilson wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > Linus has spoken, and 2.4.x now requires swap = 2x RAM.
>>
>> I think I missed this. What possible value does this have?
>> (Not
== Rogier Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William T Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linus has spoken, and 2.4.x now requires swap = 2x RAM.
I think I missed this. What possible value does this have?
(Not even Sun, the original
Le 08 Mar 2001 14:05:25 +0100, Goswin Brederlow a écrit :
I believe the 2xRAM rule comes from the OS's where ram was only buffer
for the swap. So with 1xRAM you had a running system with 1xRAM
memory, so nothing is gained by that much swap.
I think kernels 2.4.x came back to this behavior.
Xavier Bestel wrote:
[Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
Le 08 Mar 2001 14:05:25 +0100, Goswin Brederlow a _crit :
I believe the 2xRAM rule comes from the OS's where ram was only buffer
for the swap. So with 1xRAM you had a running system with 1xRAM
memory, so nothing
Rogier Wolff wrote:
On Linux any swap adds to the memory pool, so 1xRAM would be
equivalent to 2xRAM with the old old OS's.
no more true AFAIK
I've always been trying to convice people that 2x RAM remains a good
rule-of-thumb.
---
Ug. I like to view swap as low grade memory --
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, LA Walsh wrote:
An interesting option (though with less-than-stellar performance
characteristics) would be a dynamically expanding swapfile. If you're
going to be hit with swap penalties, it may be useful to not have to
pre-reserve something you only hit once in a
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, LA Walsh wrote:
An interesting option (though with less-than-stellar performance
characteristics) would be a dynamically expanding swapfile. If you're
going to be hit with swap penalties, it may be useful to not have to
pre-reserve
I've always been trying to convice people that 2x RAM remains a good
rule-of-thumb.
IMO this is pointless
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:517456 505332 12124 111016 97752 236884
-/+ buffers/cache: 170696
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, LA Walsh wrote:
An interesting option (though with less-than-stellar performance
characteristics) would be a dynamically expanding swapfile. If you're
going to be hit with swap penalties, it may be useful to not have to
pre-reserve
>> For 2.5 we could perhaps think about a new swapfile layout
> The format seems to be just fine.
No, the present definition is terrible.
Read the mkswap source. A forest of #ifdefs,
and still sometimes user assistance is required
because mkswap cannot always figure out what the "pagesize" is.
On 5 Mar 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> BTW often these big servers run databases and application servers
> which have most of their memory in shared memory. Shared memory does
> free the swap entries on swapin. (I thought about changing that but as
> long as we have no garbage collection for
On 5 Mar 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> > We've also seen (anecdotal evidence here) cases where a kernel
> > panics, which we believe may have to do with having 0 < swap < 2x
> > RAM. We're investigating further.
>
> That would be a kernel bug which should be fixed. The kernel should
>
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > My concern is that if there continues to be a 2GB swap
> > partition/file size limitation, and you can have (as currently
> > #defined) 8 swap partitions, you're limited
Hi Matt,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> My concern is that if there continues to be a 2GB swap partition/file size
> limitation, and you can have (as currently #defined) 8 swap partitions,
> you're limited to 16GB swap, which then follows a max of 8GB RAM. We'd like
> to sell
Hi Matt,
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Matt Domsch wrote:
> My concern is that if there continues to be a 2GB swap
> partition/file size limitation, and you can have (as currently
> #defined) 8 swap partitions, you're limited to 16GB swap, which then
> follows a max of 8GB RAM. We'd like to sell servers
Hi Matt,
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Matt Domsch wrote:
My concern is that if there continues to be a 2GB swap
partition/file size limitation, and you can have (as currently
#defined) 8 swap partitions, you're limited to 16GB swap, which then
follows a max of 8GB RAM. We'd like to sell servers with
Hi Matt,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
My concern is that if there continues to be a 2GB swap partition/file size
limitation, and you can have (as currently #defined) 8 swap partitions,
you're limited to 16GB swap, which then follows a max of 8GB RAM. We'd like
to sell servers
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Christoph Rohland wrote:
Hi Matt,
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Matt Domsch wrote:
My concern is that if there continues to be a 2GB swap
partition/file size limitation, and you can have (as currently
#defined) 8 swap partitions, you're limited to 16GB
On 5 Mar 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
We've also seen (anecdotal evidence here) cases where a kernel
panics, which we believe may have to do with having 0 swap 2x
RAM. We're investigating further.
That would be a kernel bug which should be fixed. The kernel should
handle oom/oos.
On 5 Mar 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
BTW often these big servers run databases and application servers
which have most of their memory in shared memory. Shared memory does
free the swap entries on swapin. (I thought about changing that but as
long as we have no garbage collection for idle
For 2.5 we could perhaps think about a new swapfile layout
The format seems to be just fine.
No, the present definition is terrible.
Read the mkswap source. A forest of #ifdefs,
and still sometimes user assistance is required
because mkswap cannot always figure out what the "pagesize" is.
> > > Linus has spoken, and 2.4.x now requires swap = 2x RAM.
> >
> > I think I missed this. What possible value does this have?
A good write-up of the discussion can be found at:
http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/kt20010126_104.html#2
My concern is that if there continues to be a 2GB swap
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
