maybe i am. look, i understand that you don't really want to swap. especially on linux which has the slowest swapping in existence. but that is better than the machine going belly up (and recall, linux is nasty in this case; it appears up from a ping perspective but you can't run any processes).
its not like we don't have the disk; these systems have 11TB of SAN/NAS and 600GB of in-the-box RAID serving / and /tmp. williams note of 75% of main memory sounds reasonable. perhaps the other thing to do is to be more shirty about setting ulimit (to 80% of main memory or somesuch). On Apr 20, 2011, at 6:37 AM, Charles Jones wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Andrew Hume <[email protected]> wrote: > i know, i know. this is an old chestnut. > we used to have swap 2-3x main memory, > but nowadays the wisdom is that that old rule > is no longer applicable. (this is on RHE5.) > so here i am, with a 128GB memory system with 16GB of swap. > and here i am, killing the system by running it out of swap. > > my observation is that if i have large memory, i will use it. > (to say nothing of memory leaks etc.) > and if i have a few multiple large memory processes, > why wouldn't i want swap sized at 2-3x memory? > > So you are proposing 384GB of swap? > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ ------------------ Andrew Hume (best -> Telework) +1 623-551-2845 [email protected] (Work) +1 973-236-2014 AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and LOPSA
_______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
