> From: Daniel L. Miller [mailto:[email protected]] > > > I'm curious why you didn't configure any swap. > > > I didn't see any point. I figured swap for a guest would be one of the > more expensive issues (performance wise).
This is an antiquated belief. The truth is: The kernel will always grow the cache & buffers to consume all available memory. Eventually, the kernel starts purging cache memory to make room for malloc requests. If you have some swap space available, then you're giving the kernel some freedom ... Am I better off to purge some not-recently used file from cache? Or am I better off to swap out the idle zombie process which can never wake up? If your active processes consume more memory than you have in your system, you'll end up thrashing in the swap space, which is very, very bad for performance and reliability. But as long as you don't do that - having a little swap space available actually *improves* performance. But all of this is irrelevant. Where you have 1G of mem, and 250M cached, and 250M free... Your system is neither pushing things out of cache, nor would it swap out any idle processes if it had that freedom available to it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122712 _______________________________________________ VBox-users-community mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vbox-users-community _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
