Re: swap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/07/07 04:53, Francesco Pietra wrote: > Is it conceivable to add a low-quality 300GB HD (for > swap file) to a raid1 system? > > The system consists of > > ---Tyan S2895 Thunder K8WE mother board > ---Two WD Raptor 150GB each > ---Two Dual Opteron > ---16 GB ram > > In computations, I can presently offer 96GB as swap > (my home), though it is not enough. Actually I started > my system with two Maxtor HD 300GB each, though, on > long runs, they proved incompatible with the mother > board and had to be replaced. > > Thanks for advice 96 GIGABYTES of swap space If that's not enough, you need a very large, expensive SPARC or Superdome system. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGPv5aS9HxQb37XmcRAmWjAKDRwBFCjInq6La8fbyyzftZypGvWwCgrmn3 zPlhdqyGapYW22EGRMSdWZ8= =2HIr -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: > On 05/07/07 04:53, Francesco Pietra wrote: >> Is it conceivable to add a low-quality 300GB HD (for >> swap file) to a raid1 system? > >> The system consists of > >> ---Tyan S2895 Thunder K8WE mother board >> ---Two WD Raptor 150GB each >> ---Two Dual Opteron >> ---16 GB ram > >> In computations, I can presently offer 96GB as swap >> (my home), though it is not enough. Actually I started >> my system with two Maxtor HD 300GB each, though, on >> long runs, they proved incompatible with the mother >> board and had to be replaced. > >> Thanks for advice > > 96 GIGABYTES of swap space > > If that's not enough, you need a very large, expensive SPARC or > Superdome system. > I agree, I can't think of any application off the top of my head that would need that much memory. Somehow I think it's a typo and should be 96 MB, but who knows. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGPwYliXBCVWpc5J4RAjYiAJ4iFX8hdCHXD0aFL9hKsz5zC3Ff5ACeMfkB NRkszFpkgIS4Gba+efE35rw= =u0Sa -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
Am Montag, den 07.05.2007, 02:53 -0700 schrieb Francesco Pietra: > Is it conceivable to add a low-quality 300GB HD (for > swap file) to a raid1 system? I guess an non-mirrored drive will have a better performance than a raid1-ed one but still will slow your system down immensely. If getting more RAM isn't possible you could use a solid state disk for swapping. Cheers Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
- Original Message - From: "Francesco Pietra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "debian-users" ; "debian64" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 6:10 AM Subject: Fwd: swap Below I mean adding a single HD not to the raid, just as additional space where to point the swap file thanks francesco --- Francesco Pietra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think people are having a difficult time understanding why you would need that much swap space. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 05:24 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 05/07/07 04:53, Francesco Pietra wrote: > > Is it conceivable to add a low-quality 300GB HD (for > > swap file) to a raid1 system? > > > > The system consists of > > > > ---Tyan S2895 Thunder K8WE mother board > > ---Two WD Raptor 150GB each > > ---Two Dual Opteron > > ---16 GB ram > > > > In computations, I can presently offer 96GB as swap > > (my home), though it is not enough. Actually I started > > my system with two Maxtor HD 300GB each, though, on > > long runs, they proved incompatible with the mother > > board and had to be replaced. > > > > Thanks for advice > > 96 GIGABYTES of swap space > > If that's not enough, you need a very large, expensive SPARC or > Superdome system. I've part-time admin'd (contracted) a couple of systems that required 128GB of swap during batch processing "middle of the night" setups. Primarily because of the inner looping of some of the jobs and the amount of "stored" info hanging in memory. Rather than fix the batch processing system, which came from an AS400 (which originally was on an IBM 36 system), the company suggested swap as a workaround. This is a medical billing system that has been around since... the 70's and has only been extended and never "refactored" or optimized. The reason being, they are afraid that the system will break. Being written in COBOL and some kind of JPL. Lets just say that the whole batching thing could easily be done dynamically, but would require a huge amount of work to re-factor and optimize the code for machines being produced now-a-day. But the fact that this package cost upward of $500K for maintenance per year per machine running it, says a lot doesn't it. Its a milker. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: swap
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:55:56AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > I've part-time admin'd (contracted) a couple of systems that required > 128GB of swap during batch processing "middle of the night" setups. > Primarily because of the inner looping of some of the jobs and the > amount of "stored" info hanging in memory. Rather than fix the batch > processing system, which came from an AS400 (which originally was on an > IBM 36 system), the company suggested swap as a workaround. How much memory and swap did the program have to play with on an AS400 or 36? To generalize the problem, given that the software can't be changed, at what point do you start to look at either a bigger single computer or a cluster that looks like a bigger computer? For me its just an intelectual exercise; I went from a 486 with 32 MB swap to an Athlon with 1GB in a single bound. That Xorg makes _that_ swap really burns me up. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 12:15 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:55:56AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > > I've part-time admin'd (contracted) a couple of systems that required > > 128GB of swap during batch processing "middle of the night" setups. > > Primarily because of the inner looping of some of the jobs and the > > amount of "stored" info hanging in memory. Rather than fix the batch > > processing system, which came from an AS400 (which originally was on an > > IBM 36 system), the company suggested swap as a workaround. > > How much memory and swap did the program have to play with on an AS400 > or 36? Things are allocated differently on the AS400 and different differently on the 36. There really isn't a way compare them, easily. Plus the "extending" has had deleterious effects on the currently supported implementations. They no longer support the "other" platforms as they don't have enough experience with them. They are trying to move everything to "Windows" as that is what everyone is asking for. > To generalize the problem, given that the software can't be changed, at > what point do you start to look at either a bigger single computer or a > cluster that looks like a bigger computer? For me its just an > intelectual exercise; I went from a 486 with 32 MB swap to an Athlon > with 1GB in a single bound. That Xorg makes _that_ swap really burns me > up. Cluster? HA! Bigger Single computer? HA! They have 8 processor machines with 64GB of memory already. The batch process can only utilize 1 processor. The other 7 processors, are basically idle. I've trended the entire machine for them. If they could LPAR the machine(s) out, they'd be marvelously happy. But they would need to get the memory upto 512MB or better and then multi-path IO for the swap... sheesh. It would be cheaper to just buy another machine and add it, but then they already have 3 hours at worst, 4 hours at best, of growth left. In any case, a "pre-batch" program assigns jobs to each machine, it takes nearly an hour to estimate loads. Again single processor usage. This whole package was never meant to scale. But it has been forced to. It also was meant to be a temporary fix until a new system was to be spec'd and written. Nothing ever came of the effort in the 70's and was dropped when this was "good enough". -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: swap
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:07:23PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 12:15 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:55:56AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > Cluster? HA! Bigger Single computer? HA! > > They have 8 processor machines with 64GB of memory already. The batch > process can only utilize 1 processor. The other 7 processors, are > basically idle. I've trended the entire machine for them. If they could > LPAR the machine(s) out, they'd be marvelously happy. But they would > need to get the memory upto 512MB or better and then multi-path IO for > the swap... sheesh. It would be cheaper to just buy another machine and > add it, but then they already have 3 hours at worst, 4 hours at best, of > growth left. > > In any case, a "pre-batch" program assigns jobs to each machine, it > takes nearly an hour to estimate loads. Again single processor usage. > > This whole package was never meant to scale. But it has been forced to. > It also was meant to be a temporary fix until a new system was to be > spec'd and written. Nothing ever came of the effort in the 70's and was > dropped when this was "good enough". I suppose the holy-grail would be something that does for CPUs in boxes what LVM does for disks: Allow a single-threaded process to utilize multiple CPUs for more speed, those CPUs able to be both within one box, and spread: a CPU pool and a memory pool. The focus for a while seems to have been how to divide up a big computer in to several smaller virtual servers (ala xen or IBM's LPARs). I haven't kept up on efforts to solve a massivly sequential problem. However, my interest is aroused. If you have a box with 8 processors and your process can only use one, can you use something like Xen, designate one whole processor and its memory to your main process and use the other processors as helpers? (maybe you don't need Xen for that, I don't know). For example, if the process needs more memory and therefore uses swap, and the MB is maxed out for memory, could another processor be used by the OS to manage a multi-disk swap farm? Put another way, if a linux box can serve data to saturate a gigabit ethernet, and it is possible to create a block device that looks like a disk that really gets its data over ethernet from another computer, can an 8-way MB take that input and present a virtual swap device to one processor so that swap functions at the same speed as memory? I guess that's called a mainframe :) Greg, I'm just babling on this. If you have links for reading I could do, I'd appreciate it. Then I may at least know what I'm babbling about. Thanks, Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:09:51PM +0200, Michael Dominok wrote: > Am Montag, den 07.05.2007, 02:53 -0700 schrieb Francesco Pietra: > > Is it conceivable to add a low-quality 300GB HD (for > > swap file) to a raid1 system? > > I guess an non-mirrored drive will have a better performance than a > raid1-ed one but still will slow your system down immensely. > > If getting more RAM isn't possible you could use a solid state disk for > swapping. People often suggest that. But RAM is cheaper than solid state disks, so it only makes sense if you have physically reached the maximum amount of memory that the system can have. At that point you would have to consider if splitting the task across more systems will provide better performance than adding swap. Swapping is incredibly slow in comparison to RAM, even to a solid state disk. Cheers, Andy -- http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Mon, 7 May 2007 12:15:31 -0400 Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:55:56AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > > I've part-time admin'd (contracted) a couple of systems that required > > 128GB of swap during batch processing "middle of the night" setups. > > Primarily because of the inner looping of some of the jobs and the > > amount of "stored" info hanging in memory. Rather than fix the batch > > processing system, which came from an AS400 (which originally was on an > > IBM 36 system), the company suggested swap as a workaround. > > How much memory and swap did the program have to play with on an AS400 > or 36? > > To generalize the problem, given that the software can't be changed, at > what point do you start to look at either a bigger single computer or a > cluster that looks like a bigger computer? For me its just an > intelectual exercise; I went from a 486 with 32 MB swap to an Athlon > with 1GB in a single bound. That Xorg makes _that_ swap really burns me > up. > > Doug. Xorg swaps with a GB? I run Xfce with 512MB and I rarely see swapping; even on my 196MB machine I didn't see much swapping. What else are you running besides X? Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Celejar wrote: > On Mon, 7 May 2007 12:15:31 -0400 > Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] >> To generalize the problem, given that the software can't be changed, at >> what point do you start to look at either a bigger single computer or a >> cluster that looks like a bigger computer? For me its just an >> intelectual exercise; I went from a 486 with 32 MB swap to an Athlon >> with 1GB in a single bound. That Xorg makes _that_ swap really burns me >> up. >> >> Doug. > > Xorg swaps with a GB? I run Xfce with 512MB and I rarely see swapping; > even on my 196MB machine I didn't see much swapping. What else are you > running besides X? > > Celejar I have to concur. I have 1GB and never see any swapping. I was actually contemplating removing the swap, but decided to leave it because disk space is cheap. On another machine that only has 256MB of ram, it does occasionally use some swap space, but even on that machine it is rare. I run several apps at the same time. Currently there are 105 processes running, although most are sleeping according to top. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQIVGiXBCVWpc5J4RAi8MAJ9y7xjJmnJUbyEEayyx/ARrshUV1wCeLDOB s9jyK1Ts4DX3GRyacOcnc64= =Dfsh -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:00:50PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > On Mon, 7 May 2007 12:15:31 -0400 > Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To generalize the problem, given that the software can't be changed, at > > what point do you start to look at either a bigger single computer or a > > cluster that looks like a bigger computer? For me its just an > > intelectual exercise; I went from a 486 with 32 MB swap to an Athlon > > with 1GB in a single bound. That Xorg makes _that_ swap really burns me > > up. > Xorg swaps with a GB? I run Xfce with 512MB and I rarely see swapping; > even on my 196MB machine I didn't see much swapping. What else are you > running besides X? > Sometimes, just links2, sometimes konq. I ususally use Xfce but have tried it with just rxvt, pdmenu, then links2 or konq. Try this site: http://www.uhn.ca/Clinics_&_Services/services/asthma Then click on "Our Team". I don't know what's with this site but all of a sudden Xorg starts racking up the memory. When I leave the site, the memory footprint doesn't shrink. Eventually, I just exit X and startx again. Not that it thrashes, but... Before I tried to upgrade my 486, it was running Sarge but needed the version 3 xserver-s3. I ran icewm and ssh'd to the Athlon box (running Etch) and ran Konq via ssh. Worked fine. 486 has 32 MB ram, S3 has 1 MB video ram. Since the 486 upgrade didn't work, I reassembled my PII box (called rocky since the CPU fan bearing is dead and sounds like a gravel truck), installed Etch, with Xorg. It has 64 MB ram, the Trident video has 4 MB video ram. Eventually (almost immediatly on that site), Xorg hogs so much memory that the box starts thrashing then totally freezes up: Ctrl-Alt-BS does nothing (even after waiting an hour), ssh in doesn't work. All I can do is pull the plug. This is with just Xorg running on the PII with Konq running on the Athlon via a ssh link. I has been my sad experience that the focus on development seems to be on supporting the latest and greatest with no focus on continuing support for earlier and lesser (by some measures), and sometimes quality takes a back seat to a feature/support list. This seems most to refer to stuff outside of debian's direct control: debian doesn't write the kernel, doesn't write Xorg. However, they did make aptitude that grabs (on the i386 PII) 57MB of virtual memory. I really liked woody. My 486 ran like a dream. The problem is that it's always onward and upward if you want to maintain security support. The 486 (called reliant since its a solid IBM [inside _and_ out] that has been going strong for 16 years) is both a client of the other boxs (since its drive is small and its slower) and the toolbox for when things go wrong on other boxes: full man pages, HOWTOs, docs for everything, serial terminal support, its own modem, exim4, mutt, X, text and graphical browser, etc. So it has to be up-to-date should I need it to access the internet directly and act as a firewall if I have to reinstall one of the other boxes. My Athlon is only 6 months old so hasn't earned the respect I have for the IBM. So I'm experimenting with other OSs for the 486. NetBSD works ok but uses Xfree86 V4 so I can only use the vesa driver for the s3; it doesn't have the drive space to get into the packages/ports stuff. Next, I'll try OpenBSD 4.0 since it has both v3 and v4. OBSD 4.1 just came out and I don't know what its support is like. Sorry for the rant. Thanks for listening. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:12:22PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: > Celejar wrote: > > On Mon, 7 May 2007 12:15:31 -0400 > > Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] > >> intelectual exercise; I went from a 486 with 32 MB swap to an Athlon > >> with 1GB in a single bound. That Xorg makes _that_ swap really burns me > >> up. > > > > Xorg swaps with a GB? I run Xfce with 512MB and I rarely see swapping; > > even on my 196MB machine I didn't see much swapping. What else are you > > running besides X? > > > I have to concur. I have 1GB and never see any swapping. I was > actually contemplating removing the swap, but decided to leave it > because disk space is cheap. On another machine that only has 256MB of > ram, it does occasionally use some swap space, but even on that machine > it is rare. > > I run several apps at the same time. Currently there are 105 processes > running, although most are sleeping according to top. Are you on i386 or amd64? I'm wondering how memory gets packed when things are 64-bit instead of 32-bit; do some things take twice as much memory? The only time I see swap is with an X browser. Doesn't matter Konq, Mozilla/galeon/whatever. link2 is OK. In fact, it was poor browser performance (read inability to view some sites) that was the drive to buy my new box. For everything else, my IBM 486 was more than adequate. It annoyed me that I had to buy a new box to do something as simple as look at a weather map or satelite photo but onwards and upwards... Thanks, Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Tue, 8 May 2007 10:28:02 -0400 Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > In fact, it was poor browser performance (read inability to view some > sites) that was the drive to buy my new box. For everything else, my > IBM 486 was more than adequate. It annoyed me that I had to buy a new > box to do something as simple as look at a weather map or satelite photo > but onwards and upwards... You're probably more technically adept than I, but even on my k6, lots of things other than web browsers are unpleasant. X startup is very slow, and aptitude is unbearable, for example. > Thanks, > > Doug. Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:33:26AM -0400, Celejar wrote: > On Tue, 8 May 2007 10:28:02 -0400 > Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] > > > In fact, it was poor browser performance (read inability to view some > > sites) that was the drive to buy my new box. For everything else, my > > IBM 486 was more than adequate. It annoyed me that I had to buy a new > > box to do something as simple as look at a weather map or satelite photo > > but onwards and upwards... > > You're probably more technically adept than I, but even on my k6, lots > of things other than web browsers are unpleasant. X startup is very > slow, and aptitude is unbearable, for example. > Isn't it sad that aptitude wasn't written to be easier on old hardware? I've written python apps that parse files bigger than aptitude does, I just don't try to pull the whole file into memory to do it; I trust the kernel and C libs to provide adequate buffering without impacting the whole system. X started up in about 30 seconds; not a big deal if its solid and I only have to do it once a day. A huge deal if I have to do it every 20 minutes. My PII isn't much faster than my 486 thanks to 1) good design on IBM's part [better IDE hardware caching for example] and 2) poorer design on Asus's part for the PII. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
Douglas Allan Tutty writes: > I don't know what's with this site but all of a sudden Xorg starts > racking up the memory. X "racks up memory" because the browser is asking for it. Note this: The page was created with Dreamworks. In other words, it's a buggy, bloated piece of crap. Interesting (but not surprising) that Macromedia claims copyright on pages created with software purchased from them. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 16:21, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:00:50PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > On Mon, 7 May 2007 12:15:31 -0400 > > > > Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > To generalize the problem, given that the software can't be changed, at > > > what point do you start to look at either a bigger single computer or a > > > cluster that looks like a bigger computer? For me its just an > > > intelectual exercise; I went from a 486 with 32 MB swap to an Athlon > > > with 1GB in a single bound. That Xorg makes _that_ swap really burns > > > me up. > > > > Xorg swaps with a GB? I run Xfce with 512MB and I rarely see swapping; > > even on my 196MB machine I didn't see much swapping. What else are you > > running besides X? > > Sometimes, just links2, sometimes konq. I ususally use Xfce but have > tried it with just rxvt, pdmenu, then links2 or konq. Try this site: > > http://www.uhn.ca/Clinics_&_Services/services/asthma > > Then click on "Our Team". > > I don't know what's with this site but all of a sudden Xorg starts > racking up the memory. When I leave the site, the memory footprint > doesn't shrink. Eventually, I just exit X and startx again. Not that > it thrashes, but... > Doug. Wow! That site doesn't half hammer the RAM. On my Gateway P111 500Mhz machine with 250MB RAM, gkrellm normally shows about 190MB free (no swap used). Going to the site started to hit the RAM. It was up and down like a yo-yo, dropping as low as 11.1MB free, and with frequent freezing of gkrellm. Clicked on "our team", and the RAM got hammered again. Big freezeup of gkrellm, then the page was loaded, and free RAM levelled out at 84MB. That means that 110MB of RAM is being used to view the site. There has to something wrong with it, surely. That was using FC2, KDE, and Konqueror. Nigel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: [snip] >> I run several apps at the same time. Currently there are 105 processes >> running, although most are sleeping according to top. > > Are you on i386 or amd64? I'm wondering how memory gets packed when > things are 64-bit instead of 32-bit; do some things take twice as much > memory? > I have both on this AMD64 system, but I find myself most of the time using the 32 bit version of (ahem) Sidux. Why? Because the multimedia codecs are available. Although I have read that the new version of ffmpeg can handle the windows media format, so it is possible that I will abandon the 32-bit system for the AMD64. I know that it will suck more memory, just by the way the system is designed, but I think that packages being compiled for a 64 bit system on a 64 bit system will work at least marginally faster than packages compiled for 486, which is what most of the packages are compiled for. As for swap space, even in the AMD64 version of Etch that I have, it doesn't need to use the swap (and it is the same swap partition). > The only time I see swap is with an X browser. Doesn't matter Konq, > Mozilla/galeon/whatever. link2 is OK. > Interesting. You said you have 1GB of RAM. I would think that you can do an experiment by turning off the swap and seeing what happens. Worse case you'll have to reboot (I would think). > In fact, it was poor browser performance (read inability to view some > sites) that was the drive to buy my new box. For everything else, my > IBM 486 was more than adequate. It annoyed me that I had to buy a new > box to do something as simple as look at a weather map or satelite photo > but onwards and upwards... Yes, todays browsers are far more demanding, mainly due to the large amount of media that they need to be able to handle. HTML has also gotten a lot more complicated, thus the rendering engines need to be more powerful. I really dislike the way modern sites overuse the and format themselves so they only show a fixed resolution. But there isn't much I can do about it. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQKl7iXBCVWpc5J4RAtAZAJ4zW8iTuHhH/DMZ8ueOOWkILY0QggCbBDkv HSe2iv3NADgZEzc+c+D0VWQ= =3xXe -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nigel Henry wrote: > On Tuesday 08 May 2007 16:21, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: [snip] >> Sometimes, just links2, sometimes konq. I ususally use Xfce but have >> tried it with just rxvt, pdmenu, then links2 or konq. Try this site: >> >> http://www.uhn.ca/Clinics_&_Services/services/asthma >> >> Then click on "Our Team". >> >> I don't know what's with this site but all of a sudden Xorg starts >> racking up the memory. When I leave the site, the memory footprint >> doesn't shrink. Eventually, I just exit X and startx again. Not that >> it thrashes, but... > >> Doug. > > Wow! That site doesn't half hammer the RAM. On my Gateway P111 500Mhz machine > with 250MB RAM, gkrellm normally shows about 190MB free (no swap used). > > Going to the site started to hit the RAM. It was up and down like a yo-yo, > dropping as low as 11.1MB free, and with frequent freezing of gkrellm. > > Clicked on "our team", and the RAM got hammered again. Big freezeup of > gkrellm, then the page was loaded, and free RAM levelled out at 84MB. That > means that 110MB of RAM is being used to view the site. There has to > something wrong with it, surely. > > That was using FC2, KDE, and Konqueror. > > Nigel. Confirmed, That site does use 110MB of RAM. Why? Who knows? The page is not that big. It's a perfect example of why I say that modern web pages suck. all over the place formatting itself to it's resolution instead of mine. It seems to me, some webmasters should be shot. ;) Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQKvTiXBCVWpc5J4RAuAKAJ9iTMx3NoBtwvpWhl1gwSIB4TeTgACfYS97 Y3o8v2pZj+PuJ8VWSyBK6r0= =bvFW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 06:56:51PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: > Nigel Henry wrote: > > On Tuesday 08 May 2007 16:21, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > [snip] > >> Sometimes, just links2, sometimes konq. I ususally use Xfce but have > >> tried it with just rxvt, pdmenu, then links2 or konq. Try this site: > >> > >> http://www.uhn.ca/Clinics_&_Services/services/asthma > >> > >> Then click on "Our Team". > >> > >> I don't know what's with this site but all of a sudden Xorg starts > >> racking up the memory. When I leave the site, the memory footprint > >> doesn't shrink. Eventually, I just exit X and startx again. Not that > >> it thrashes, but... > > > >> Doug. > > > > Wow! That site doesn't half hammer the RAM. On my Gateway P111 500Mhz > > machine > > with 250MB RAM, gkrellm normally shows about 190MB free (no swap used). > > > > Going to the site started to hit the RAM. It was up and down like a yo-yo, > > dropping as low as 11.1MB free, and with frequent freezing of gkrellm. > > > > Clicked on "our team", and the RAM got hammered again. Big freezeup of > > gkrellm, then the page was loaded, and free RAM levelled out at 84MB. That > > means that 110MB of RAM is being used to view the site. There has to > > something wrong with it, surely. > > > > That was using FC2, KDE, and Konqueror. > > > > Nigel. > > Confirmed, That site does use 110MB of RAM. Why? Who knows? The page > is not that big. It's a perfect example of why I say that modern web > pages suck. all over the place formatting itself to it's > resolution instead of mine. > > It seems to me, some webmasters should be shot. ;) > yep. but works fine here in up-to-date sid/xfce/iceweasel. my ram usage goes from 304MB, to 328MB on the front page. no change in "our team" and frees it when I close the tab. Now 25MB is definitely huge for a webpage, but its not causing anything like you guys are suggesting. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:54:58AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Douglas Allan Tutty writes: > > I don't know what's with this site but all of a sudden Xorg starts > > racking up the memory. > > X "racks up memory" because the browser is asking for it. Note this: > > > > > > The page was created with Dreamworks. In other words, it's a buggy, > bloated piece of crap. Interesting (but not surprising) that Macromedia > claims copyright on pages created with software purchased from them. Why wouldn't top show that Konq was using more memory instead of Xorg? Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 05:24:24PM +0200, Nigel Henry wrote: > On Tuesday 08 May 2007 16:21, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:00:50PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > > On Mon, 7 May 2007 12:15:31 -0400 > > Sometimes, just links2, sometimes konq. I ususally use Xfce but have > > tried it with just rxvt, pdmenu, then links2 or konq. Try this site: > > > > http://www.uhn.ca/Clinics_&_Services/services/asthma > > > > Then click on "Our Team". > > > > I don't know what's with this site but all of a sudden Xorg starts > > racking up the memory. When I leave the site, the memory footprint > > doesn't shrink. Eventually, I just exit X and startx again. Not that > > it thrashes, but... > > > Wow! That site doesn't half hammer the RAM. On my Gateway P111 500Mhz machine > with 250MB RAM, gkrellm normally shows about 190MB free (no swap used). > > Going to the site started to hit the RAM. It was up and down like a yo-yo, > dropping as low as 11.1MB free, and with frequent freezing of gkrellm. > > Clicked on "our team", and the RAM got hammered again. Big freezeup of > gkrellm, then the page was loaded, and free RAM levelled out at 84MB. That > means that 110MB of RAM is being used to view the site. There has to > something wrong with it, surely. > Short of getting into user quota, is there any way to keep an innocent user (me) from inadvertantly crashing (ok, grinding to a thrashing halt) the whole system just because I viewed a teaching-hospital's web site? I see from another post that its fine in Sid. Perhaps when the lenny dust settles, I should move the amd64 up to Lenny. I'm on dialup and the amd64 is my main box (and server for other boxes) so don't want the occasional breakage that running sid can entail. When ready to do that (is it OK now?) do I just change my sources.list from etch to lenny and use aptitude (interactive) like normal? Thanks, Doug. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/08/07 11:46, Joe Hart wrote: [snip] > Interesting. You said you have 1GB of RAM. I would think that you can > do an experiment by turning off the swap and seeing what happens. Worse > case you'll have to reboot (I would think). swapon swapoff - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQMXCS9HxQb37XmcRAuntAKCFL7vyQYlo1hzlu6CVcE6dsRpCMwCgu+QA UUnSeiMy7n+KL6H39HhtEus= =fQOr -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
Doug writes: > Short of getting into user quota, is there any way to keep an innocent > user (me) from inadvertantly crashing (ok, grinding to a thrashing halt) > the whole system just because I viewed a teaching-hospital's web site? help ulimit -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 02:46:01PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: [bunch of stuff on bad websites] > > Short of getting into user quota, is there any way to keep an innocent > user (me) from inadvertantly crashing (ok, grinding to a thrashing halt) > the whole system just because I viewed a teaching-hospital's web site? > > I see from another post that its fine in Sid. Perhaps when the lenny > dust settles, I should move the amd64 up to Lenny. I'm on dialup and the > amd64 is my main box (and server for other boxes) so don't want the > occasional breakage that running sid can entail. note that "fine from sid" refers to a k7 architecture. > > When ready to do that (is it OK now?) do I just change my sources.list > from etch to lenny and use aptitude (interactive) like normal? yep. I'd wait a while still before moving up. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 05:24:24PM +0200, Nigel Henry wrote: >> On Tuesday 08 May 2007 16:21, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: >>> On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:00:50PM -0400, Celejar wrote: On Mon, 7 May 2007 12:15:31 -0400 >>> Sometimes, just links2, sometimes konq. I ususally use Xfce but have >>> tried it with just rxvt, pdmenu, then links2 or konq. Try this site: >>> >>> http://www.uhn.ca/Clinics_&_Services/services/asthma >>> >>> Then click on "Our Team". >>> >>> I don't know what's with this site but all of a sudden Xorg starts >>> racking up the memory. When I leave the site, the memory footprint >>> doesn't shrink. Eventually, I just exit X and startx again. Not that >>> it thrashes, but... >> >> Wow! That site doesn't half hammer the RAM. On my Gateway P111 500Mhz >> machine >> with 250MB RAM, gkrellm normally shows about 190MB free (no swap used). >> >> Going to the site started to hit the RAM. It was up and down like a yo-yo, >> dropping as low as 11.1MB free, and with frequent freezing of gkrellm. >> >> Clicked on "our team", and the RAM got hammered again. Big freezeup of >> gkrellm, then the page was loaded, and free RAM levelled out at 84MB. That >> means that 110MB of RAM is being used to view the site. There has to >> something wrong with it, surely. >> > I was curious so I clicked the link, nothing unusual no ram-sucking on my machine. I am running Sid. Cheers Frank -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQRgtzWG7ldLG6fIRAnIrAJ4q2JP0ucXOkAmvUBavEMPrvZRwQQCfVbce 6F8LhF5GuWIrDffMLL86ICo= =viyW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
Frank McCormick wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 05:24:24PM +0200, Nigel Henry wrote: On Tuesday 08 May 2007 16:21, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:00:50PM -0400, Celejar wrote: On Mon, 7 May 2007 12:15:31 -0400 Sometimes, just links2, sometimes konq. I ususally use Xfce but have tried it with just rxvt, pdmenu, then links2 or konq. Try this site: http://www.uhn.ca/Clinics_&_Services/services/asthma Then click on "Our Team". I don't know what's with this site but all of a sudden Xorg starts racking up the memory. When I leave the site, the memory footprint doesn't shrink. Eventually, I just exit X and startx again. Not that it thrashes, but... Wow! That site doesn't half hammer the RAM. On my Gateway P111 500Mhz machine with 250MB RAM, gkrellm normally shows about 190MB free (no swap used). Going to the site started to hit the RAM. It was up and down like a yo-yo, dropping as low as 11.1MB free, and with frequent freezing of gkrellm. Clicked on "our team", and the RAM got hammered again. Big freezeup of gkrellm, then the page was loaded, and free RAM levelled out at 84MB. That means that 110MB of RAM is being used to view the site. There has to something wrong with it, surely. I was curious so I clicked the link, nothing unusual no ram-sucking on my machine. I am running Sid. Cheers Frank -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQRgtzWG7ldLG6fIRAnIrAJ4q2JP0ucXOkAmvUBavEMPrvZRwQQCfVbce 6F8LhF5GuWIrDffMLL86ICo= =viyW -END PGP SIGNATURE- FWIW, I can concur with Frank here. I checked with both Konqueror and IceWeasel and there was nothing unusual. I agree there was a quick tug on CPU resources, but that passed rapidly. Otherwise, no anomalies. @ -- "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." - Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
Re: swap
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 01:46:35AM +0100, andy wrote: >>> > >>>Clicked on "our team", and the RAM got hammered again. Big freezeup of > >>>gkrellm, then the page was loaded, and free RAM levelled out at 84MB. > >>>That means that 110MB of RAM is being used to view the site. There has > >>>to something wrong with it, surely. > >>> > >>> > > > >I was curious so I clicked the link, nothing unusual no ram-sucking > >on my machine. I am running Sid. > > > FWIW, I can concur with Frank here. I checked with both Konqueror and > IceWeasel and there was nothing unusual. I agree there was a quick tug > on CPU resources, but that passed rapidly. Otherwise, no anomalies. It does seem like the problem, whatever it is, is solved in Sid. So I'll wait for a while. I tried setting ulimit -v to 98304 and it did keep Xorg from thrashing the system, it would just kill off the remote Konq and the terminal window running top. However, I've go a new problem: My panel in Xfce doesn't show up. I tried moving my configs out of the way and I've tried purging and reinstalling xfce-panel with no luck. All that thrashing and hard reboots may have damaged something. I don't have samhain to tell me if anything has changed or gone missing. If I can't solve it, I'll keep my eye on the rest of the system and if other things go haywire I'll consider just reinstalling. Thanks for all your help. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:42:43PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 01:46:35AM +0100, andy wrote: > >>> > > >>>Clicked on "our team", and the RAM got hammered again. Big freezeup of > > >>>gkrellm, then the page was loaded, and free RAM levelled out at 84MB. > > >>>That means that 110MB of RAM is being used to view the site. There has > > >>>to something wrong with it, surely. > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >I was curious so I clicked the link, nothing unusual no ram-sucking > > >on my machine. I am running Sid. > > > > > > FWIW, I can concur with Frank here. I checked with both Konqueror and > > IceWeasel and there was nothing unusual. I agree there was a quick tug > > on CPU resources, but that passed rapidly. Otherwise, no anomalies. > > It does seem like the problem, whatever it is, is solved in Sid. So > I'll wait for a while. > > I tried setting ulimit -v to 98304 and it did keep Xorg from thrashing > the system, it would just kill off the remote Konq and the terminal > window running top. However, I've go a new problem: My panel in Xfce > doesn't show up. I tried moving my configs out of the way and I've > tried purging and reinstalling xfce-panel with no luck. All that > thrashing and hard reboots may have damaged something. I don't have > samhain to tell me if anything has changed or gone missing. If I can't > solve it, I'll keep my eye on the rest of the system and if other things > go haywire I'll consider just reinstalling. you have to (not at my machine!) go into the xfce settings manager and "allow xfce to manage the desktop" or some such. I think its under "Desktop" or "Window Manager" and then make sure you're set to save the session, though I think that particular setting operates outside the "saved session" system. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 08:18:29PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:42:43PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 01:46:35AM +0100, andy wrote: > > > I tried setting ulimit -v to 98304 and it did keep Xorg from thrashing > > the system, it would just kill off the remote Konq and the terminal > > window running top. However, I've go a new problem: My panel in Xfce > > doesn't show up. I tried moving my configs out of the way and I've > > tried purging and reinstalling xfce-panel with no luck. All that > > thrashing and hard reboots may have damaged something. I don't have > > samhain to tell me if anything has changed or gone missing. If I can't > > solve it, I'll keep my eye on the rest of the system and if other things > > go haywire I'll consider just reinstalling. > > you have to (not at my machine!) go into the xfce settings manager and > "allow xfce to manage the desktop" or some such. I think its under > "Desktop" or "Window Manager" > > and then make sure you're set to save the session, though I think that > particular setting operates outside the "saved session" system. You misunderstand. It was working and I didn't change any of the settings. The panel stopped working. Under settings, I click on panel and nothing happens. Panel is installed, presents a button on the settings menu, but is unresponsive. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:38:44AM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 08:18:29PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:42:43PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 01:46:35AM +0100, andy wrote: > > > > > I tried setting ulimit -v to 98304 and it did keep Xorg from thrashing > > > the system, it would just kill off the remote Konq and the terminal > > > window running top. However, I've go a new problem: My panel in Xfce > > > doesn't show up. I tried moving my configs out of the way and I've > > > tried purging and reinstalling xfce-panel with no luck. All that > > > thrashing and hard reboots may have damaged something. I don't have > > > samhain to tell me if anything has changed or gone missing. If I can't > > > solve it, I'll keep my eye on the rest of the system and if other things > > > go haywire I'll consider just reinstalling. > > > > you have to (not at my machine!) go into the xfce settings manager and > > "allow xfce to manage the desktop" or some such. I think its under > > "Desktop" or "Window Manager" > > > > and then make sure you're set to save the session, though I think that > > particular setting operates outside the "saved session" system. > > You misunderstand. It was working and I didn't change any of the > settings. The panel stopped working. Under settings, I click on panel > and nothing happens. Panel is installed, presents a button on the > settings menu, but is unresponsive. I mention that because I had my xfce stuff disappear the other day after an upgrade/reboot and that was the problem. And just to clarify (at my machine now) it was xfce settings -> Desktop -> allow xfce to manage the desktop. is xfce4-panel running? what happens if you start it from a terminal? A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: [Andrew, in my mutt I hit L to reply to the list, but if you're the author of the post I'm replying to, it sets a cc to reply to you. Is this intentional on your part? It doesn't happen with anyone else. I'll leave the cc in just this once; let me know. Doug. ] > > is xfce4-panel running? what happens if you start it from a terminal? > Thank you. It ran from a terminal. Exit xfce and restart and no panel. Choose run program, enter efce4-panel, get a panel. Check settings, session manager: Somehow after the upgrade, the 'save session on logout' checkbox was unchecked. Checked it, and now I have my panel back. Now we'll see how well it tolerates switching to a VT and back. The panel used to go blank and the window manager to stop accepting input. The apps themselves (e.g. KDE via ssh) continued to function. Time will tell. Thanks again, Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 07:07:27AM -0700, ann kok wrote: > Hi all > > Can debian support swap bigger than 4G? > Why would you need swap space that big? Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On 5/10/07, ann kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all Can debian support swap bigger than 4G? Thank you I suppose that yes. You can create partition in any size, and the memory limit is 64GB (if you need more, you need to enable some flag in kernel). Regards, atis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:16:30AM -0700, ann kok wrote: > In the doc. the swap should be twice of the memory > When I have 4G memory, I create 8G swap > > ls it right? > Sort of. It should read "twice the amount of memory, up to 1 GB of swap." In general, you should *never* need that amount of swap. There was a recent thread where Greg Folkert mentioned a situation which he encountered where a system had 128 GB of swap. That is *extremely* rare. So, unless you are running massive batch jobs overnight which will greatly exceed your available physical memory, 1GB of swap should be more than sufficient. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 15:39 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:07:23PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 12:15 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:55:56AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > > Cluster? HA! Bigger Single computer? HA! > > > > They have 8 processor machines with 64GB of memory already. The batch > > process can only utilize 1 processor. The other 7 processors, are > > basically idle. I've trended the entire machine for them. If they could > > LPAR the machine(s) out, they'd be marvelously happy. But they would > > need to get the memory upto 512MB or better and then multi-path IO for > > the swap... sheesh. It would be cheaper to just buy another machine and > > add it, but then they already have 3 hours at worst, 4 hours at best, of > > growth left. > > > > In any case, a "pre-batch" program assigns jobs to each machine, it > > takes nearly an hour to estimate loads. Again single processor usage. > > > > This whole package was never meant to scale. But it has been forced to. > > It also was meant to be a temporary fix until a new system was to be > > spec'd and written. Nothing ever came of the effort in the 70's and was > > dropped when this was "good enough". > > I suppose the holy-grail would be something that does for CPUs in boxes > what LVM does for disks: Allow a single-threaded process to utilize > multiple CPUs for more speed, those CPUs able to be both within one box, > and spread: a CPU pool and a memory pool. That is pretty much what IBMs LPAR of AS/400 and AIX (and other hypervisor setups) do. Unfortunately, this company was "sold" a sooper-dooper machine in a deal for 2 of them. They would have spent more on smaller machines. But, IBM has sales quotas and deal deadlines for sales people. Forklift upgrades, full cabinet deals are pretty much the norm when it comes to the sales department. IOW, push more hardware, period, they'll eventually be suckers for upgrades. > The focus for a while seems to have been how to divide up a big computer > in to several smaller virtual servers (ala xen or IBM's LPARs). I > haven't kept up on efforts to solve a massivly sequential problem. > However, my interest is aroused. Massively sequential problems are very, very, very difficult to parallize. Even vectored processor systems balk and fail badly at massively sequential problems. > If you have a box with 8 processors and your process can only use one, > can you use something like Xen, designate one whole processor and its > memory to your main process and use the other processors as helpers? > (maybe you don't need Xen for that, I don't know). Yes, you could, but that is why I mentioned they would need 512GB+ of RAM and serious multi-pathing to the IO to get sufficient bottle neck reduction. It would be cheaper to just add smaller more "commoditized" systems aka "Linux" which the software vendor is still resisting. Or even just to add 2 processor AIX systems with 64GB of memory. > For example, if the process needs more memory and therefore uses swap, > and the MB is maxed out for memory, could another processor be used by > the OS to manage a multi-disk swap farm? Put another way, if a linux > box can serve data to saturate a gigabit ethernet, and it is possible to > create a block device that looks like a disk that really gets its data > over ethernet from another computer, can an 8-way MB take that input > and present a virtual swap device to one processor so that swap > functions at the same speed as memory? Wow, you have three ideas in one paragraph there. First off, let me tell you a bit more about the processing that goes on. First off, the "primary" machine goes through and does an estimate on the number of records pulled for each "billing job". It then assigns (in the DB) which defined machine will do what jobs. Each of these machines are defined with "capacity" info built into the script to determine the "amount" of work possible. Its a huge SWAG, that is tweaked until right, over the course of a few weeks. This then kicks off the processing of the previous days records. Each machine ALL of its daily info into memory, this of course creates a big problem... the 36 and AS/400 systems did not do this, they used piece-meal in methods. This behavior was changed during the conversion to use AIX. The static data in memory of course swaps out. This was causing the behavior of the machines becoming lethargic and not able to complete the processing in DAYS, falling further and further behind. Add enough swap to "cover" the anemic amount of working room problems fixed the lethargy. Though a back hack, it does work. Though, adding machines would be easier on the amount of memory required per machine to use, remember they were "sold" expensive systems. To much to allow for smaller machine that could actually work better. Now, idea number one. Multi-disk swap farm, already done, I've spread the swap out ove
Re: swap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/10/07 16:12, Greg Folkert wrote: [snip] > >> I guess that's called a mainframe :) > > No, mainframes are not really that "capable" as a holy grail to set your > sights on. Yes they operate on a different set of standards, but over > all, they were designed to handle large amounts of input and output in a > very reasonable way. They really don't do computing any better or worse > (subjective, yes, I know) than any other systems. The only real thing > mainframes do better than many other systems, that I know of, is COST a > lot of money to maintain and upgrade. Did you just contradict yourself? They're *great* at IO. And they're durable. Does AIX have batch queues? - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFGQ5sJS9HxQb37XmcRAh2PAJ0Qi7v526vCc+I5T4YynIeol2KIWwCY8z9G cm8+1p7Q7QpT4C+fIgeojg== =GIHQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/10/07 09:07, ann kok wrote: > Hi all > > Can debian support swap bigger than 4G? $ man mkswap On i386, each swap area is a maximum 2GiB, and you can have 32 of them. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQ5vGS9HxQb37XmcRAvNzAJ4v2g1UewwOPytxTuzh9Rh3zqF5AACgorxF enFS/dRsCdmvwpHeajGCe6s= =LlQt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:12:23PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 15:39 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:07:23PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > > > On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 12:15 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:55:56AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > > > I suppose the holy-grail would be something that does for CPUs in boxes > > what LVM does for disks: Allow a single-threaded process to utilize > > multiple CPUs for more speed, those CPUs able to be both within one box, > > and spread: a CPU pool and a memory pool. > > That is pretty much what IBMs LPAR of AS/400 and AIX (and other > hypervisor setups) do. You mean that with LPARs you can designate 10 processors to a job and the job will think its running on a single super-dooper processor? > Unfortunately, this company was "sold" a > sooper-dooper machine in a deal for 2 of them. They would have spent > more on smaller machines. But, IBM has sales quotas and deal deadlines > for sales people. Forklift upgrades, full cabinet deals are pretty much > the norm when it comes to the sales department. IOW, push more hardware, > period, they'll eventually be suckers for upgrades. > > > The focus for a while seems to have been how to divide up a big computer > > in to several smaller virtual servers (ala xen or IBM's LPARs). I > > haven't kept up on efforts to solve a massivly sequential problem. > > However, my interest is aroused. > > Massively sequential problems are very, very, very difficult to > parallize. Even vectored processor systems balk and fail badly at > massively sequential problems. > And finally idea number three. Using memory as swap... It is a good > idea... but then, the whole purpose of swap was that memory was not > sufficient enough to provide enough working room. Going above 64GB of > memory on ANY machine is not cheap. Not cheap at all. If I were going to > use it as swap, I just assume use it as REAL working memory. AIX really > doesn't have a set-in-stone maximum amount of memory it can support, so > to use REALLY expensive memory as swap, I'd fire myself for doing that. > Nice idea on paper, but in reality... not viable. > I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting to use memory as swap. I was wondering about ways to get swap that was faster than a disk array and wondering if it could be farmed out to other boxes and present something which could be swapped to faster (ideally approaching memory speed). For example, if your box _was_ maxxed out on memory but the program still wanted to pull in _all_ the data to memory at once and it wouldn't fit, so it swaps; then what if you had something like a SAN that could present a block device that functioned as fast as memory, this block device actually being run by (an)other processor(s) on the same machine? BTW, the load the whole file into memory but it doesn't fit problem is _exactly_ the problem I have on both my 486 (32 MB ram) and PI (64 MB ram). For a long time I've been intreguied by the problems of solving sequential problems that can not be parralized. Paralized solutions seem to be relativly old hat with things like beowolf clusters and for that matter Cray clusters. But what does a computer designed from the outset to solve a sequential problem look like? What does the fastest single processor look like and what does it need to operate at full speed. Someone once said (I forgot who or where I hear/read it) that the job of a supercomputer was to turn compute-bound jobs into IO-bound jobs. If you can get the IO (disk, memory, network, whatever) to keep up with the processor the job becomes compute-bound again. So can you make a single virtual processor (emulator?), that may run on many real physical processors, that runs faster (compute-wise, e.g. FLOPS not MHz) than any existing single physical processor? Even for a sequential program, the internal workings of a CPU are paralelized; could that be used to advantage? > IBM has a lot of goodies on publib > > http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/eserver/ > > Have fun reading *FOREVER*, > I mean that literally. And if you have enough time you can also > checkout: > > http://www.elink.ibmlink.ibm.com/publications/servlet/pbi.wss > > For even more IBM publications. I fell in love with redbooks when I ran OS/2 (my version was not Y2K+1 capable and I couldn't afford to replace it, which brought me to Linux via a $20 old stock "teach yourself redhat in 24 hrs book". Redhat's next upgrade wouldn't install on my 486, the same 486 that Etch now won't install on. On to BSD for that box. Since I got internet, I've been a regular mooch at ibm's site. Great stuff. I didn't have the chance to play with computers in school, other than OS/2 and REXX on my home box, and certainly never an AIX box or anything bigger. Thanks for humouring me. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C
Re: swap
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 07:06:00PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > [Andrew, in my mutt I hit L to reply to the list, but if you're the > author of the post I'm replying to, it sets a cc to reply to you. Is > this intentional on your part? It doesn't happen with anyone else. > I'll leave the cc in just this once; let me know. Doug. ] so, I just checked and my mail to the list has Mail-Follow-up-to: debian-user..., [EMAIL PROTECTED] whereas others only have debian-user. I wonder why that is. I've not got any headers set other than set [EMAIL PROTECTED] set realname="Andrew Sackville-West" set use_from set envelope_from what could be causing that? A > > > > > is xfce4-panel running? what happens if you start it from a terminal? > > > > Thank you. > > It ran from a terminal. Exit xfce and restart and no panel. > > Choose run program, enter efce4-panel, get a panel. Check settings, > session manager: > Somehow after the upgrade, the 'save session on logout' checkbox > was unchecked. Checked it, and now I have my panel back. > > Now we'll see how well it tolerates switching to a VT and back. The > panel used to go blank and the window manager to stop accepting input. > The apps themselves (e.g. KDE via ssh) continued to function. > > Time will tell. > > Thanks again, > > Doug. > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 07:06:00PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > [Andrew, in my mutt I hit L to reply to the list, but if you're the > author of the post I'm replying to, it sets a cc to reply to you. Is > this intentional on your part? It doesn't happen with anyone else. > I'll leave the cc in just this once; let me know. Doug. ] huh. it doesn't happen in my mutt back to you. It must be some header I've set. I'll check it out. maybe I've set "follow-up to"? anyway, I get dupes a lot, but it doesn't bother me because procmail puts them in the right folder for me anyway. > > > > > is xfce4-panel running? what happens if you start it from a terminal? > > > > Thank you. > > It ran from a terminal. Exit xfce and restart and no panel. > > Choose run program, enter efce4-panel, get a panel. Check settings, > session manager: > Somehow after the upgrade, the 'save session on logout' checkbox > was unchecked. Checked it, and now I have my panel back. > > Now we'll see how well it tolerates switching to a VT and back. The > panel used to go blank and the window manager to stop accepting input. > The apps themselves (e.g. KDE via ssh) continued to function. cool. glad its back. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:00:01AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 07:06:00PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > > [Andrew, in my mutt I hit L to reply to the list, but if you're the > > author of the post I'm replying to, it sets a cc to reply to you. Is > > this intentional on your part? It doesn't happen with anyone else. > > I'll leave the cc in just this once; let me know. Doug. ] > > so, I just checked and my mail to the list has > > Mail-Follow-up-to: debian-user..., [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > whereas others only have debian-user. > > I wonder why that is. > > I've not got any headers set other than > > set [EMAIL PROTECTED] > set realname="Andrew Sackville-West" > set use_from > set envelope_from > > what could be causing that? > I'm on dialup so I have the luxury [:)] of being able to send an email while I'm not connected and then look at it as it sits in exim's queue. Are you able to do something similar to see at what point the extra header is inserted? Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/10/07 18:10, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: [snip] > > I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting to use memory as swap. I > was wondering about ways to get swap that was faster than a disk array > and wondering if it could be farmed out to other boxes and present > something which could be swapped to faster (ideally approaching memory > speed). For example, if your box _was_ maxxed out on memory but the > program still wanted to pull in _all_ the data to memory at once and it > wouldn't fit, so it swaps; then what if you had something like a SAN > that could present a block device that functioned as fast as memory, > this block device actually being run by (an)other processor(s) on the > same machine? *If* you had such a device, it would be *great*. But you don't. It's impossible, if for no other reasons than that the rotational speeds of disks (3 microseconds) are many orders of magnitude slower than the access speed of RAM (80 nanoseconds, many many years ago). And if you say "make a SSD", then I say that it's still slower than RAM because disk channel bandwidth is still *much* slower than memory bandwidth. Better to spend that money on extra RAM. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQ8NjS9HxQb37XmcRAlOkAJ42lkB4tbQIrtCyOp24oEfdUO+2VgCg14bE Av/FpQ0JQhojtaAtvbmBXMs= =Ee56 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 07:07:27AM -0700, ann kok wrote: > Hi all > > Can debian support swap bigger than 4G? per: man mkswap maximum usable size per swap area is 2GiB for i386 architecture with linux supporting up to 32 swap areas. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 08:14:11PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 05/10/07 18:10, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > [snip] > > > And if you say "make a SSD", then I say that it's still slower than > RAM because disk channel bandwidth is still *much* slower than > memory bandwidth. Better to spend that money on extra RAM. > But if the problem/program can only run on one processor, and you have maxxed out the memory that that processor (or the MB it's on) can handle... I've been trying to find (e.g. google, ibm) information on supercomputers/HPC that are built to solve sequential problems and striking out. Everything is on paralellization and how clusters don't help if you can't make it a parallel problem. The other tack I've been thinking is what if you could make a virtual computer that ran on more than one CPU/node that was _more_ powerful (compute, memory, whatever) than any one CPU/node. This would be the direct opposite of the current virtualization of a guest being a subset of the host (e.g. Xen, z/VM). The problem here is that, unlike Xen, it would require a true emulation rather than passing code directly to a processor. Other than your bach job, I wonder what would be an example of a current real-world sequential compute problem; a long-running program that couldn't be run in parallel on multiple nodes. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/10/07 22:11, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 08:14:11PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 05/10/07 18:10, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: >> [snip] > >> And if you say "make a SSD", then I say that it's still slower than >> RAM because disk channel bandwidth is still *much* slower than >> memory bandwidth. Better to spend that money on extra RAM. >> > > But if the problem/program can only run on one processor, and you have > maxxed out the memory that that processor (or the MB it's on) can > handle... Then you've run into an unfixable bottleneck and are SOL. > I've been trying to find (e.g. google, ibm) information on > supercomputers/HPC that are built to solve sequential problems and > striking out. Everything is on paralellization and how clusters don't > help if you can't make it a parallel problem. > > The other tack I've been thinking is what if you could make a virtual > computer that ran on more than one CPU/node that was _more_ powerful > (compute, memory, whatever) than any one CPU/node. This would be the > direct opposite of the current virtualization of a guest being a subset > of the host (e.g. Xen, z/VM). The problem here is that, unlike Xen, it > would require a true emulation rather than passing code directly to a > processor. > > Other than your bach job, I wonder what would be an example of a current > real-world sequential compute problem; a long-running program that > couldn't be run in parallel on multiple nodes. Certain weather simulations are not parallel because the subsequent iteration is dependent on the value of the current iteration. In fact, by definition, iterative numerical methods are serial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterative_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton-Raphson_method - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQ+nLS9HxQb37XmcRAn74AJ9KVmGpMPzIjEP8xMvx7E2iVSvFdgCffTYK IKrWt6Sz0VzTnL4h4dVf6Tg= =BN/U -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:04:56PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:00:01AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 07:06:00PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > > > > [Andrew, in my mutt I hit L to reply to the list, but if you're the > > > author of the post I'm replying to, it sets a cc to reply to you. Is > > > this intentional on your part? It doesn't happen with anyone else. > > > I'll leave the cc in just this once; let me know. Doug. ] > > > > so, I just checked and my mail to the list has > > > > Mail-Follow-up-to: debian-user..., [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > whereas others only have debian-user. > > > > I wonder why that is. > > > > I've not got any headers set other than > > > > set [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > set realname="Andrew Sackville-West" > > set use_from > > set envelope_from > > > > what could be causing that? > > > > I'm on dialup so I have the luxury [:)] of being able to send an email > while I'm not connected and then look at it as it sits in exim's queue. > Are you able to do something similar to see at what point the extra > header is inserted? okay, well its somewhere between mutt and my outbound mailserver... A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:04:56PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:00:01AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 07:06:00PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > >
> > > [Andrew, in my mutt I hit L to reply to the list, but if you're the
> > > author of the post I'm replying to, it sets a cc to reply to you. Is
> > > this intentional on your part? It doesn't happen with anyone else.
> > > I'll leave the cc in just this once; let me know. Doug. ]
> >
> > so, I just checked and my mail to the list has
> >
> > Mail-Follow-up-to: debian-user..., [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > whereas others only have debian-user.
> >
> > I wonder why that is.
> >
> > I've not got any headers set other than
> >
> > set [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > set realname="Andrew Sackville-West"
> > set use_from
> > set envelope_from
> >
> > what could be causing that?
> >
>
> I'm on dialup so I have the luxury [:)] of being able to send an email
> while I'm not connected and then look at it as it sits in exim's queue.
> Are you able to do something similar to see at what point the extra
> header is inserted?
>
well, since my broadband is currently only up about 40% of the time,
its pretty much like dialup I'll see what I can see
just a quick check from within mutt ('E' edit with headers) shows
nothing abnormal...
I'll check it in the queue.
A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 07:58:29PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > yep. man muttrc to the rescue. The "lists" directive includes both the > list *and* your own address in the f-u-to header, whereas "subscribe" > only includes the mailing list in the f-u header. except with the "subscribe" directive, now mutt doesn't show the "from" in the message tree, just the "to". So now the all say "To:debian-user..." so its either turn off the "subscribe" or learn how to restructure that tree. ... hmmm... time to learn more ;) A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:25:10PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 05/10/07 09:07, ann kok wrote: > > Hi all > > > > Can debian support swap bigger than 4G? > > $ man mkswap > > On i386, each swap area is a maximum 2GiB, and you can have 32 of them. that's just freaky A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:04:56PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:00:01AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 07:06:00PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > > > > [Andrew, in my mutt I hit L to reply to the list, but if you're the > > > author of the post I'm replying to, it sets a cc to reply to you. Is > > > this intentional on your part? It doesn't happen with anyone else. > > > I'll leave the cc in just this once; let me know. Doug. ] > > > > so, I just checked and my mail to the list has > > > > Mail-Follow-up-to: debian-user..., [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > whereas others only have debian-user. > > > > I wonder why that is. > > > > I've not got any headers set other than > > > > set [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > set realname="Andrew Sackville-West" > > set use_from > > set envelope_from > > > > what could be causing that? > > > > I'm on dialup so I have the luxury [:)] of being able to send an email > while I'm not connected and then look at it as it sits in exim's queue. > Are you able to do something similar to see at what point the extra > header is inserted? still there in the header at my local exim... somewhere between the saving of the file by mutt and receipt by exim maybe... I just had a stroke of brilliance... look in my =sent folder, because that's done by mutt and not by exim... That would give me a copy of themessage in the same state as when it left mutt. Sure enough, the extra F-u to header is there already. I've got my mailing lists shown in muttrc "lists" directive. Could that do it? yep. man muttrc to the rescue. The "lists" directive includes both the list *and* your own address in the f-u-to header, whereas "subscribe" only includes the mailing list in the f-u header. learn somethin' every day. thanks for pointing that out. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 08:02:00PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 07:58:29PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > > yep. man muttrc to the rescue. The "lists" directive includes both the > > list *and* your own address in the f-u-to header, whereas "subscribe" > > only includes the mailing list in the f-u header. > > except with the "subscribe" directive, now mutt doesn't show the > "from" in the message tree, just the "to". So now the all say > "To:debian-user..." so its either turn off the "subscribe" or learn > how to restructure that tree. ... hmmm... time to learn more ;) I don't have either in my muttrc and I don't have any problems ... Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 07:58:29PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > yep. man muttrc to the rescue. The "lists" directive includes both the > list *and* your own address in the f-u-to header, whereas "subscribe" > only includes the mailing list in the f-u header. > That may be why I receive many CCs on list mail. Thanks for the tip. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 09:39:00AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 08:02:00PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > > except with the "subscribe" directive, now mutt doesn't show the > > "from" in the message tree, just the "to". So now the all say > > "To:debian-user..." so its either turn off the "subscribe" or learn > > how to restructure that tree. ... hmmm... time to learn more ;) > > I don't have either in my muttrc and I don't have any problems ... > Could it be that those are meant to force mutt to deal properly with boken mailig list? That is, lists that don't include appropriate list headers? Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 17:22 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 05/10/07 16:12, Greg Folkert wrote: > [snip] > > > >> I guess that's called a mainframe :) > > > > No, mainframes are not really that "capable" as a holy grail to set your > > sights on. Yes they operate on a different set of standards, but over > > all, they were designed to handle large amounts of input and output in a > > very reasonable way. They really don't do computing any better or worse > > (subjective, yes, I know) than any other systems. The only real thing > > mainframes do better than many other systems, that I know of, is COST a > > lot of money to maintain and upgrade. > > Did you just contradict yourself? They're *great* at IO. And > they're durable. Durable, through HUGE maintenance contracts. Though... I should have said: Besides IO, the only real thing mainframes do better than many other systems, that I know of, is COST a lot of money to maintain and upgrade. Some costs I have seen in the past, associated with "mainframes": * $50K just to get TCP/IP enabled on a single network interface. * $120K to enable another, already there, processor. * $60K to "update" the disk IO scheduler, that was mistakenly ordered with the wrong configuration I could mention others, I don't have all day. These were all done in about 30 minutes after a P.O. was cut and faxed. > Does AIX have batch queues? This response intentionally left blank. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: swap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/07 06:42, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 17:22 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 05/10/07 16:12, Greg Folkert wrote: >> [snip] I guess that's called a mainframe :) >>> No, mainframes are not really that "capable" as a holy grail to set your >>> sights on. Yes they operate on a different set of standards, but over >>> all, they were designed to handle large amounts of input and output in a >>> very reasonable way. They really don't do computing any better or worse >>> (subjective, yes, I know) than any other systems. The only real thing >>> mainframes do better than many other systems, that I know of, is COST a >>> lot of money to maintain and upgrade. >> Did you just contradict yourself? They're *great* at IO. And >> they're durable. > > Durable, through HUGE maintenance contracts. Though... > > I should have said: > > Besides IO, the only real thing mainframes do better than many > other systems, that I know of, is COST a lot of money to > maintain and upgrade. > > Some costs I have seen in the past, associated with "mainframes": > > * $50K just to get TCP/IP enabled on a single network interface. > * $120K to enable another, already there, processor. > * $60K to "update" the disk IO scheduler, that was mistakenly > ordered with the wrong configuration > > I could mention others, I don't have all day. These were all done in > about 30 minutes after a P.O. was cut and faxed. You're absolutely correct. But they must be of some corporate benefit, because otherwise they'd have been replaced by big Alphas & SPARCs. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGRGp8S9HxQb37XmcRAv+4AJ4pmKhl/uNAhOSga9hfRkSl4D++qwCfShL2 ZmL9snlbJW/dF5kSfsYhbmQ= =bScF -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/10/07 21:37, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:25:10PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 05/10/07 09:07, ann kok wrote: >>> Hi all >>> >>> Can debian support swap bigger than 4G? >> $ man mkswap >> >> On i386, each swap area is a maximum 2GiB, and you can have 32 of them. > > that's just freaky Nah. We just know which man page to look in... - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGRGriS9HxQb37XmcRAnxPAJ9iROkgSAPpwLArzN2gvbqVFNODVACfczHQ JR3g3UvU694aSCYsPGHCIZc= =ICiW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:19:04 -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:16:30AM -0700, ann kok wrote: > > In the doc. the swap should be twice of the memory > > When I have 4G memory, I create 8G swap > > > > ls it right? > > > Sort of. It should read "twice the amount of memory, up to 1 GB of > swap." In general, you should *never* need that amount of swap. There $ swapon -s FilenameTypeSizeUsedPriority /dev/hda7 partition 1485972 0 -1 This was setup by the installer (guided partitioning; the system has 512MB RAM). I complained about it in my install report [0]. Franz replied: > 5) I'm also curious about the partition sizes chosen by the installer - > is as much as 1.5 GB (out of 27 GB total, on a system with 512 MB RAM) > really the recommended amount? I suppose some people use beryl instead > of Xfce, though :). Guided partitioning sets an upper limit of 300% memory size for swap partitions. It is true that that is somewhat high for system with a lot of internal memory. However, it does not do any harm either. [snip] > -Roberto [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=410328 Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator
Re: swap
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 05:35:59AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 09:39:00AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 08:02:00PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > > > > except with the "subscribe" directive, now mutt doesn't show the > > > "from" in the message tree, just the "to". So now the all say > > > "To:debian-user..." so its either turn off the "subscribe" or learn > > > how to restructure that tree. ... hmmm... time to learn more ;) > > > > I don't have either in my muttrc and I don't have any problems ... > > > Could it be that those are meant to force mutt to deal properly with > boken mailig list? That is, lists that don't include appropriate list > headers? probably. I'm sure you've all read the man page by now, but (paraphrasing) subscribe includes a "follow-up-to" header with the lists address so that anyone who replies to the message will send it to the list instead of to you. lists does the above but also includes your address so that you will get a copy too. This is useful for posting to a list that you are not subscribed to as you'll get the response. and as regards the "To: debian-user..." in the index view: the index_format key controls the look of the index. it defaults to " ... %-15.15L ... " where 'L' means -- show who its from, unless its to a list, then show the list. This must be useful if you don't sort out your mail into different folders for lists. If you do (like me) and want to actually see who the mail is from (if for example, your trying to ignore the list ethicist for the day) then change the index_format to " ... %-15.15F ... " so that it always shows the "From" instead. I leave it to you to read the fine manual for the rest of the string. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 07:41:15AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > probably. I'm sure you've all read the man page by now, but (paraphrasing) > > subscribe includes a "follow-up-to" header with the lists address so > that anyone who replies to the message will send it to the list > instead of to you. > > lists does the above but also includes your address so that you will > get a copy too. This is useful for posting to a list that you are not > subscribed to as you'll get the response. > > and as regards the "To: debian-user..." in the index view: > > the index_format key controls the look of the index. > > it defaults to " ... %-15.15L ... " where 'L' means -- show who its > from, unless its to a list, then show the list. This must be useful if > you don't sort out your mail into different folders for lists. If you > do (like me) and want to actually see who the mail is from (if for > example, your trying to ignore the list ethicist for the day) then > change the index_format to " ... %-15.15F ... " so that it always > shows the "From" instead. I leave it to you to read the fine manual > for the rest of the string. > > A Excellent. I got mine working how I want it now. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: swap
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:33:26AM -0400, Celejar wrote: > On Tue, 8 May 2007 10:28:02 -0400 > Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] > > > In fact, it was poor browser performance (read inability to view some > > sites) that was the drive to buy my new box. For everything else, my > > IBM 486 was more than adequate. It annoyed me that I had to buy a new > > box to do something as simple as look at a weather map or satelite photo > > but onwards and upwards... > > You're probably more technically adept than I, but even on my k6, lots > of things other than web browsers are unpleasant. X startup is very > slow, and aptitude is unbearable, for example. Its only unbearable _because_ you have experienced something better. It sounds corny but its true. -- Chris. == -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Swap
Gudjon I. Gudjonsson wrote: Hi Thanks for the information, it has been interesting but is it not possible to start on the current kernel and do swapoff and then change the swap partition and then swapon again? Or comment it out in fstab and then reboot? Anyway, I have resized a swap partition some years ago that way. Regards Gudjon Yes, that is another way to go. However, in the case where only one swap space is configured, I don't believe the kernel will allow it to be deactivated (I may be mis-remembering, or perhaps its the case in a UNIX SVR4 system?). So, it may be safer to boot from a rescue CD and work from that environment, than to try to use swapoff on a single swap space used by the currently running kernel. And, if you're going to edit fstab and reboot anyway, why not just do it from the CD and avoid the fstab edit step altogether? FYI, you should reply to the full list, not to a poster only, as others may be interested in the question and answer. So, I'm sending this to the list, with a CC to you as a courtesy. Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Swap
Hi >Thanks for the information, it has been interesting but is it not possible > to start on the current kernel and do swapoff and then change the swap > partition and then swapon again? Or comment it out in fstab and then reboot? > Anyway, I have resized a swap partition some years ago that way. > > Regards > Gudjon > > Yes, that is another way to go. However, in the case where only one > swap space is configured, I don't believe the kernel will allow it to be > deactivated (I may be mis-remembering, or perhaps its the case in a UNIX > SVR4 system?). Yes, I should have tried it again before posting, # free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 41266844071152 55532 010978681463912 -/+ buffers/cache:15093722617312 Swap: 7711160 07711160 Then turn off swap # swapoff -a # free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 41266844068316 58368 010978201464848 -/+ buffers/cache:15056482621036 Swap:0 0 0 and turn it on again # swapon -a # free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 41266844071912 54772 010978441464840 -/+ buffers/cache:15092282617456 Swap: 7711160 07711160 Worked perfectly but I guess it is safer if the partition is empty. > > So, it may be safer to boot from a rescue CD and work from that > environment, than to try to use swapoff on a single swap space used by > the currently running kernel. And, if you're going to edit fstab and > reboot anyway, why not just do it from the CD and avoid the fstab edit > step altogether? I always lend out or loose my rescue disks in some other way:) > > FYI, you should reply to the full list, not to a poster only, as others > may be interested in the question and answer. If I'm not sure of what I'm saying I try to minimise the traffic on the list by sending a private message, asking for a reply on the list if it makes sense. Regards Gudjon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Swap
I am going to configurate a linux machine. But I don't know if it is = good to use a old 120 MB drive for swap. I would like to know if it is = good to use that drive for swap and a new WD for /. The new drive is = around 4GB so I could use the new drive for swap too and the old one for = garbage. I do not know which configuration is better. I would be very = gled for any advice. Thanks in advance.=20 The newer drive is probably much faster than the old one. I would recommend putting both swap and / on the new drive because of this. HTH, Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Swap
actually thats good...use the new drive exclusively but... don't "use th eold drive for garbage" old hard drives are great...good for lofting monitors once you get a few of them -Steve Ben Pfaff wrote: >I am going to configurate a linux machine. But I don't know if it is = >good to use a old 120 MB drive for swap. I would like to know if it is = >good to use that drive for swap and a new WD for /. The new drive is = >around 4GB so I could use the new drive for swap too and the old one for = >garbage. I do not know which configuration is better. I would be very = >gled for any advice. Thanks in advance.=20 > > The newer drive is probably much faster than the old one. I would > recommend putting both swap and / on the new drive because of this. > > HTH, Ben. > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I am back to nothing worthwhile of a SIG again if you want my pgp key though check out: http://www.gis.net/~sjc/pgp.asc (BTW Thanx allot Noah for pointing out why putting my pgp key here was a bad idea...now I hafta find a new funny quote or something for here) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap
What does "swapon -s" say? Where should your swap be and where is it? Rob On Sun, Sep 12, 1999 at 06:15:37PM +0300, tf wrote: > I'm cheating here with netscape, but on my own machine! yee haw. > I don't seem to be swapping. the boot messages include "activating > swap", and I have a swap partition, but top shows nothing but zeros in > the swap line. any ideas? -- Arguments are extremely vulgar, for everyone in good society holds exactly the same opinion. -- Oscar Wilde
Re: swap-partition
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Klaus Jantzen wrote: > > on my machine I have two HDDs with Windows, Debian and another Linux system. > Because of the two Linux systems I have two swap partitions. > > As I want to remove the other Linux I want to get rid of one of the swap > partitions. > How can I find out which swap partition is used by Debian and by the other > Linux, respectively? > > With 'df' I only see the file systems mounted e.g. / (root) and /home of > Debian but not the swap partition. "blkid" and "grep swap /etc/fstab" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sy_00Xj=8OUoC9QG51D48M_an=f9O4skWowL6=hgoo...@mail.gmail.com
Re: swap-partition
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 01:07:28PM +, Klaus Jantzen wrote: > Hello, > > on my machine I have two HDDs with Windows, Debian and another Linux system. > Because of the two Linux systems I have two swap partitions. > > As I want to remove the other Linux I want to get rid of one of the swap > partitions. > How can I find out which swap partition is used by Debian and by the > other Linux, respectively? > > With 'df' I only see the file systems mounted e.g. / (root) and /home of > Debian but not the swap partition. Actually, even with two different linux installations under dual-boot, you only need one swap partition: They can usually share :-) (unless you do suspend-to-disk). >From within a running Linux system, you can see the active swap partitions/files using: # swapon -s or $ cat /proc/swaps Hope this helps -- Karl E. Jorgensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121102131857.GD22806@hawking
Re: swap-partition
Hi guys, On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 01:07:28PM +, Klaus Jantzen wrote: > > Hello, > > > > on my machine I have two HDDs with Windows, Debian and another Linux > system. > > Because of the two Linux systems I have two swap partitions. > > > > As I want to remove the other Linux I want to get rid of one of the swap > > partitions. > > How can I find out which swap partition is used by Debian and by the > > other Linux, respectively? > > > > With 'df' I only see the file systems mounted e.g. / (root) and /home of > > Debian but not the swap partition. > > Actually, even with two different linux installations under dual-boot, > you only need one swap partition: They can usually share :-) (unless > you do suspend-to-disk). > > >From within a running Linux system, you can see the active swap > partitions/files using: > > # swapon -s > > or > > $ cat /proc/swaps > It's also a good practice to properly set the partition types. Then, you can find the swap partition using "fdisk -l" and searching for the type "Linux swap", or 82. Assuming you're using regular partitions. > > Hope this helps > -- > Karl E. Jorgensen > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121102131857.GD22806@hawking > > Best, -- Pedro Eugênio Rocha
Re: swap-partition
Klaus Jantzen wrote: Hello, on my machine I have two HDDs with Windows, Debian and another Linux system. Because of the two Linux systems I have two swap partitions. As I want to remove the other Linux I want to get rid of one of the swap partitions. How can I find out which swap partition is used by Debian and by the other Linux, respectively? With 'df' I only see the file systems mounted e.g. / (root) and /home of Debian but not the swap partition. Hello, thank you all for your help. 'swapon -s' seems to me the best and shortest command. 'fdisk -l'gives the same result as 'parted print list,all': it shows both swap partitions and I cannot determine which belongs to what system. I did not know that it would be possible to share a swap partition and I would not have dared to try it. -- K.D. J. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50955098.3040...@t-online.de
Re: Swap space
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:26:30 -0800 (PST) Charles Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm about to install sid, using unoffical iso's, on a > machine w/ 384MB of RAM. Old rule of thumb was > 2*RAM-SIZE = SWAP-SIZE . Do I really need 768MB of > swap space?!?!?! Plus, since the install uses 2.2.20 > kernel, will it be able to handle a swap space larger > than 128MB? The traditional method (before swap could be larger than 128MB), was to make lots of 128MB swap partitions. In your case, 3. -- ++ | Ron Johnson, Jr.Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | Jefferson, LA USA http://ronandheather.dhs.org:81| || | 484,246 sq mi are needed for 6 billion people to live, 4 ! ! persons per lot, in lots that are 60'x150'.| ! That is ~ California, Texas and Missouri. ! ! Alternatively, France, Spain and The United Kingdom. | ++
Re: Swap space
Charles Baker, 2002-Feb-24 13:26 -0800: > I'm about to install sid, using unoffical iso's, on a > machine w/ 384MB of RAM. Old rule of thumb was > 2*RAM-SIZE = SWAP-SIZE . Do I really need 768MB of > swap space?!?!?! Plus, since the install uses 2.2.20 > kernel, will it be able to handle a swap space larger > than 128MB? The swap size will depend on what you're using the system for. For a workstation/desktop type of system, I've always done 128MB swaps and when the RAM size goes above 128, I match the RAM and swap size. For a system serving an active website, dns, dhcpd, ftp, etc., which will have a minimum of 128MB (for me), I'll double the size of RAM for swap. This has worked for me so far...jc -- Jeff CoppockSystems Engineer Diggin' Debian Admin and User
Re: Swap space
Another thing to think about is where to put them. If you have multiple drives, you'll want swap on each drive to give the OS a better chance to do paging where it's not already doing I/O. -- http://www.eskimo.com/~xeno [EMAIL PROTECTED] Physically I'm at: 5101 N. 45th St., Tacoma, WA, 98407-3717, U.S.A.
Re: Swap space
On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 15:49, Jeff wrote: > The swap size will depend on what you're using the system for. > For a workstation/desktop type of system, I've always done 128MB > swaps and when the RAM size goes above 128, I match the RAM and > swap size. Of course, this largely depends on what you are using the workstation for and how memory hoggish the apps are. Another thing you can look at is swapd. It generates swap files as needed. I use it on my machines since I rarely go over my physical ram, but I want swap space available just in case I do. My laptop has 256M of RAM, but only a 10G hard drive, so I don't really want to waste any hard drive space to a largely unused swap partition. Caleb -- Question: Is it better to abide by the rules until they're changed or help speed the change by breaking them? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Swap space
Lo, on Sunday, February 24, Charles Baker did write: > I'm about to install sid, using unoffical iso's, on a > machine w/ 384MB of RAM. Old rule of thumb was > 2*RAM-SIZE = SWAP-SIZE . Do I really need 768MB of > swap space?!?!?! Plus, since the install uses 2.2.20 > kernel, will it be able to handle a swap space larger > than 128MB? I don't remember the exact details, but the 128M limit on swap space was relaxed quite some time ago. 2.2.20 should handle a single 768M swap partition/file quite nicely. You'd need to know what you're planning on using the machine for in order to decide if 768M swapspace is really necessary. Richard
Re: swap size
depends what the machine is doing and how many disks you have, i for one never like to have more then 256MB of swap on any one disk.. more then that and the system can slow to a crawl(which is better then a crash). Unless you got really really fast hdds. My desktop has 512MB of ram and 377MB of swap(usually i do 128MB of swap per disk ..and as i mentioned above, 256MB max) ..so if it were my machine i would have in the range of 700-800MB of swap. but of course that depends on what the box will be doing. nate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > a couple of days ago a was configuring a bunch of boxes with 1G ram > and i allocated 1G of swap, because my boss said so. a co-worker then > told me that the appropriate amount of swap to allocate should be > twice the ram. i really don't see the point of having the swap to be > twice the size of ram, especially since i have 1G of it. there must > be a point of diminishing return regarding swap allocation. is there > even a point of allocating swap on a system with 1G ram if so what's > the magic size? > > thanks > pd > > -- > > "As a general rule, if you have trouble > with the binary system, then probably it > is because you do not really understand > the decimal system ..." > R.W. Hamming > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ::: ICQ: 75132336 http://www.aphroland.org/ http://www.linuxpowered.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap size
hi ya.. it also depends on the largest sized programs you gonna be using... if the binary is yoru typical 100K binarys and its datafiles is just 100Myou will never need 1Gb of disks also depends on hwo the apps are written to be tunable or not for thevarious hardware configlots or memory or virtual mem and fast/slow drives... the 1x or 2x ram rule came from the old days of running 100K binaries with 10M or 100M data files with 64Mb of ram setc... and going backwards in time c ya alvin On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Nate Amsden wrote: > depends what the machine is doing and how many disks you have, i for one > never like to have more then 256MB of swap on any one disk.. more then > that and the system can slow to a crawl(which is better then a > crash). Unless you got really really fast hdds. My desktop has 512MB > of ram and 377MB of swap(usually i do 128MB of swap per disk ..and as i > mentioned above, 256MB max) ..so if it were my machine i would have in > the range of 700-800MB of swap. > > but of course that depends on what the box will be doing. > > nate > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > a couple of days ago a was configuring a bunch of boxes with 1G ram > > and i allocated 1G of swap, because my boss said so. a co-worker then > > told me that the appropriate amount of swap to allocate should be > > twice the ram. i really don't see the point of having the swap to be > > twice the size of ram, especially since i have 1G of it. there must > > be a point of diminishing return regarding swap allocation. is there > > even a point of allocating swap on a system with 1G ram if so what's > > the magic size? > > > > thanks > > pd > > > > -- > > > > "As a general rule, if you have trouble > > with the binary system, then probably it > > is because you do not really understand > > the decimal system ..." > > R.W. Hamming > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > ::: > ICQ: 75132336 > http://www.aphroland.org/ > http://www.linuxpowered.net/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: swap size
The magic amount of swap is the totaly memory you ever expect to need, minus the amount of physical RAM you have. That's it, really. These 1xRAM, 2xRAM, etc. rules are just vague hand-wavey guidelines. Just guess how much memory you might need and subtract 1G (in your case). Note: some systems mirror the physical RAM in swap, so having less swap than RAM is meaningless and having the same amount is pointless. Linux doesn't do that, so the amount of swap you allocate is added to your total RAM available. Greg --- "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea." --RFC-1925
Re: swap size
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 09:35:16PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > a couple of days ago a was configuring a bunch of boxes with 1G ram > and i allocated 1G of swap, because my boss said so. a co-worker then > told me that the appropriate amount of swap to allocate should be > twice the ram. i really don't see the point of having the swap to be > twice the size of ram, especially since i have 1G of it. there must > be a point of diminishing return regarding swap allocation. is there > even a point of allocating swap on a system with 1G ram if so what's > the magic size? As others have said, you only need what you're going to use and the 2xRAM rule is largely obsolete these days. As data points, I run two Linux workstations, both are configured as development stations using WindowMaker and primarly run Eterms, XMMS, gcc, and Netscape, plus a horde of dockapps. The one at home is set up with 128M RAM + 128M swap; the one at work has 256M RAM and no swap. Both work great and never have any memory shortages. -- "Two words: Windows survives." - Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior strategist "So does syphillis. Good thing we have penicillin." - Matthew Alton Geek Code 3.1: GCS d? s+: a- C++ UL++$ P++>+++ L+++> E- W--(++) N+ o+ !K w---$ O M- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t 5++ X+ R++ tv b+ DI D G e* h+ r++ y+
Re: swap size
on Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:01:44PM -0600, Dave Sherohman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 09:35:16PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > a couple of days ago a was configuring a bunch of boxes with 1G ram > > and i allocated 1G of swap, because my boss said so. a co-worker then > > told me that the appropriate amount of swap to allocate should be > > twice the ram. i really don't see the point of having the swap to be > > twice the size of ram, especially since i have 1G of it. there must > > be a point of diminishing return regarding swap allocation. is there > > even a point of allocating swap on a system with 1G ram if so what's > > the magic size? > > As others have said, you only need what you're going to use and the 2xRAM rule > is largely obsolete these days. As data points, I run two Linux workstations, > both are configured as development stations using WindowMaker and primarly > run Eterms, XMMS, gcc, and Netscape, plus a horde of dockapps. The one at > home is set up with 128M RAM + 128M swap; the one at work has 256M RAM and > no swap. Both work great and never have any memory shortages. There's one advantage to a 2x or 3x rule, which is what I'd used in the past. First, in sizing your swap partitions, it probably makes more sense to allocate more swap for systems on the lower end of the "currently typical" memory allocation spectrum. Which means that in another couple of years, we might be advocating 2-3 GB of swap for a system with 1-2 GB of physical memory, particularly if applications follow typical trends toward bloat. On the positive side, GNU/Linux, network-oriented applications, web-enabled apps, handhelds, and related developments, have made thin applications once again compelling. The advantage: it's easier to add memory (pop in a few sticks) than to reassign and repartition disk. If you start off a system with 2-3x memory as swap, you'll have some proportional room to fill as you ratchet up your memory over time. I've gone from roughly three times swap to 1.5 times as I've upped my system memory from 96 MB to 256 MB. I've still got a healthy proportion, without having to repartition. Agreement in general with others' comments: swap is a buffer to extend your system. You don't need more than you need, but when you need it, it's nice to have. In tight situations, you can always add swapfiles as an emergency measure, though these are less efficient than dedicated partitions. -- Karsten M. Self http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc. http://www.zelerate.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/http://www.kuro5hin.org pgpeGDmWQNvpN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: swap size
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:41:02 -0800 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: > on Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:01:44PM -0600, Dave Sherohman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 09:35:16PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > a couple of days ago a was configuring a bunch of boxes with 1G ram > > > and i allocated 1G of swap, because my boss said so. a co-worker then > > > told me that the appropriate amount of swap to allocate should be > > > twice the ram. i really don't see the point of having the swap to be > > > twice the size of ram, especially since i have 1G of it. there must > > > be a point of diminishing return regarding swap allocation. is there > > > even a point of allocating swap on a system with 1G ram if so what's > > > the magic size? 1GB is lots of RAM. As you are talking about a bunch of boxes, what I would try to do is to set up one box with a swap say twice this and run the box as it is going to be used. The program free(1) can show how much memory/swap is being used. I have no idea what these machines will be used for, but my nose tells me that you are not using 1GB. Try to observe this a reasonable amount of time. If it never reaches swap, say 500MB, you could do it perfectly without swap. If you come close to use all, adding 1GB of swap should be more than plenty. [...] > The advantage: it's easier to add memory (pop in a few sticks) than to > reassign and repartition disk. If you start off a system with 2-3x > memory as swap, you'll have some proportional room to fill as you > ratchet up your memory over time. I've gone from roughly three times > swap to 1.5 times as I've upped my system memory from 96 MB to 256 MB. > I've still got a healthy proportion, without having to repartition. IMHO 1GB is not really a low-end system nowadays; I believe that before upgrading memory of such a system, you'll be upgrading the whole machine. On the other hand, Linux has no troubles with more than one swap partition; you can even use swap files. The point here is, that a system actually using so much RAM would not easily go by with the lack of speed using constant swap. Again IMHO, I wouldn't worry too much about upgrades; you need it working now. > In tight situations, you can always add swapfiles as an emergency > measure, though these are less efficient than dedicated partitions. You could even add a whole HD just for swap (if really needed). -- Christoph Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ^X^C q quit :q ^C end x exit ZZ ^D ? help shit .
Re: swap size
Quoting Greg Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > The magic amount of swap is the totaly memory you ever expect to need, > minus the amount of physical RAM you have. That's it, really. These > 1xRAM, 2xRAM, etc. rules are just vague hand-wavey guidelines. Just > guess how much memory you might need and subtract 1G (in your case). I agree. I get the impression that the rule Swap = N * Physical RAM dates from the time when men were men, swapfiles were swapfiles, and systems actually swapped. Linux, as far as I am aware, has never swapped, only paged. > Note: some systems mirror the physical RAM in swap, so having less swap > than RAM is meaningless and having the same amount is pointless. Linux > doesn't do that, so the amount of swap you allocate is added to your > total RAM available. Yes, the rule for MacOS Virtual Memory is physical memory + 1MB. Cheers, -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151 Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
Re: swap size
David Wright writes: > I get the impression that the rule Swap = N * Physical RAM dates from the > time when men were men, swapfiles were swapfiles, and systems actually > swapped. I used to run System III on an Onyx (no paging: just swap). No 2x rule. I believe that some versions of BSD required that swap = 2 * physical RAM for reasons that have escaped me. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: swap size
Quoting John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > David Wright writes: > > I get the impression that the rule Swap = N * Physical RAM dates from the > > time when men were men, swapfiles were swapfiles, and systems actually > > swapped. > > I used to run System III on an Onyx (no paging: just swap). No 2x rule. I > believe that some versions of BSD required that swap = 2 * physical RAM for > reasons that have escaped me. ... and yet HP-UX, which is meant to be closer to SystemV than BSD, says "The minimum recommendation is twice as much swap space as physical memory." and "Swap space should not be less than the amount of physical memory in your system." yet it is paging, not swapping. Mind you, it would appear obvious that you can't swap between two maximum-sized processes unless you have swap >= 2*RAM. Cheers, -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151 Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
Re: swap partition
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 06:53:21PM -0800, Kenneth Scharf wrote: > What is the max size of a swap partition under the 2.2 > and 2.3/2.4 kernels. I know that the 2.0 kernels were > limited to 128 (or 127?)mb, but you could have several > of them. Did this change in 2.2-2.4? RTM: /usr/src/linux/Documentation/Changes ...the 128 MB limit has been lifted, though the dox don't say what the new limit is, I'd expect in the absence of other information that it is restricted by VFS/VM and general memory subsystem support to 1 or 2 GB depending on your compile options. Which is a really technical sounding way of saying I really don't know fsck, but it's more than 128 MB now . -- Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com) What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Scope out Scoop: http://scoop.kuro5hin.org/ Nothin' rusty about Kuro5hin: http://www.kuro5hin.org/
Re: swap partition
- Original Message - From: Kenneth Scharf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 8:23 AM Subject: swap partition Hi > What is the max size of a swap partition under the 2.2 > and 2.3/2.4 kernels. I know that the 2.0 kernels were > limited to 128 (or 127?)mb, but you could have several > of them. Did this change in 2.2-2.4? > ? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null > > I had rather stupidly had a 2GB swap on Red Hat 6.0 with 2.2.5 kernel which I later changed to 64MB So the limit now is much more than 128MB Previ
Re: swap problem
Hello. > i am getting some problem with swap. the swap is not starting ok. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /etc/fstab > # /etc/fstab: static file system information. > # > # > proc/proc procdefaults0 0 > /dev/sda6 / reiserfs notail 0 1 > /dev/sda5 noneswapsw 0 0 > /dev/hdb/media/cdrom0 iso9660 ro,user,noauto 0 0 > /dev/fd0/media/floppy0 autorw,user,noauto 0 0 > /dev/sda1 /media/c vfatdefaults,utf8,umask=007,gid=46 0 > 1 > /dev/sda7 /media/dvfatdefaults,utf8,umask=007,gid=46 0 > 1 > /dev/sda8 /media/e vfatdefaults,utf8,umask=007,gid=46 0 > 1 There is no swap entry here so it is obvious that it won’t get started. You have to enter something like the following into your /etc/fstab: > /dev/hdxN noneswapsw 0 0 Then swap will be activated on boot. (You can activate it for you current session via „swapon /dev/hdxN“.) Regards, Mathias -- debian/rules signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: swap problem
On Sun, 2006-09-17 at 11:23 +0200, Mathias Brodala wrote: > Hello. > > > i am getting some problem with swap. the swap is not starting ok. > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /etc/fstab > > # /etc/fstab: static file system information. > > # > > # > > proc/proc procdefaults0 0 > > /dev/sda6 / reiserfs notail 0 1 > > /dev/sda5 noneswapsw 0 0 check this line. > > /dev/hdb/media/cdrom0 iso9660 ro,user,noauto 0 0 > > /dev/fd0/media/floppy0 autorw,user,noauto 0 0 > > /dev/sda1 /media/c vfatdefaults,utf8,umask=007,gid=46 0 > > 1 > > /dev/sda7 /media/dvfatdefaults,utf8,umask=007,gid=46 0 > > 1 > > /dev/sda8 /media/e vfatdefaults,utf8,umask=007,gid=46 0 > > 1 > > There is no swap entry here so it is obvious that it won’t get started. You > have > to enter something like the following into your /etc/fstab: > > > /dev/hdxN noneswapsw 0 0 > allready its available on fstab. some this really wrong, no live cd can also use that partation. how can i reformat the swap partation for use ? > Then swap will be activated on boot. (You can activate it for you current > session via „swapon /dev/hdxN“.) > > > Regards, Mathias > -- S. M. Ibrahim (Lavlu) Home page: http://lavluda.tripod.com Blog: http://lavluda.tk Yahoo!! ID: lavluda MSN ID: lavluda Skype : lavluda gpg public key: A9910F9E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: swap problem
Hello. (Can’t Evolution reply to list? I thought I read something like that somewhere.) >>> /dev/sda5 noneswapsw 0 0 > check this line. Whoops, my bad. I was looking for hdxN >> There is no swap entry here so it is obvious that it won’t get started. You >> have >> to enter something like the following into your /etc/fstab: >> >>> /dev/hdxN noneswapsw 0 0 > allready its available on fstab. some this really wrong, no live cd can > also use that partation. > how can i reformat the swap partation for use ? Use „mkswap“. Regards, Mathias -- debian/rules signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: swap problem
solved by mkswarpOn 9/17/06, Mathias Brodala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello.(Can't Evolution reply to list? I thought I read something like that somewhere.)>>> /dev/sda5 noneswapsw 0 0> check this line.Whoops, my bad. I was looking for hdxN>> There is no swap entry here so it is obvious that it won't get started. You have>> to enter something like the following into your /etc/fstab: > /dev/hdxN noneswapsw 0 0> allready its available on fstab. some this really wrong, no live cd can> also use that partation.> how can i reformat the swap partation for use ?Use „mkswap".Regards, Mathias --debian/rules-- S. M. Ibrahim (Lavlu)Home page: http://lavluda.tripod.comBlog: http://lavluda.tkYahoo!! ID: lavluda MSN ID: lavluda Skype : lavluda
Re: swap problem
On 9/18/06, S. M. Ibrahim (Lavlu) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: solved by mkswarp opps , spelling mistake "mkswap" On 9/17/06, Mathias Brodala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello.(Can't Evolution reply to list? I thought I read something like that somewhere.)>>> /dev/sda5 noneswapsw 0 0> check this line.Whoops, my bad. I was looking for hdxN>> There is no swap entry here so it is obvious that it won't get started. You have>> to enter something like the following into your /etc/fstab: > /dev/hdxN noneswapsw 0 0> allready its available on fstab. some this really wrong, no live cd can> also use that partation.> how can i reformat the swap partation for use ?Use „mkswap".Regards, Mathias --debian/rules-- S. M. Ibrahim (Lavlu)Home page: http://lavluda.tripod.comBlog: http://lavluda.tkYahoo!! ID: lavluda MSN ID: lavluda Skype : lavluda -- S. M. Ibrahim (Lavlu)Home page: http://lavluda.tripod.comBlog: http://lavluda.tk Yahoo!! ID: lavluda MSN ID: lavluda Skype : lavluda
Re: swap size
A single linux swap partition cannot be more than 128MB in size. But that doesn't mean you're limited to only 1 swap partition. As far as how much you should need I can't really answer that question. But if it helps the SGI Octane workstation I use has 512MB of RAM and only one swap partition of 256MB, and it hits the swap pretty hard on occasion. I hope this helped, -jeremy -- Jeremy Hinegardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Assistant http://meru.cecs.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia Multimedia Communications and Visualization Laboratory -- On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Max wrote: > I'm about ready to setup a machine with 512 MB of RAM and I'm > wondering how much swap space I should allocate. I've read about the > 2x rule, but 1 GB of swap seems somewhat excessive. I've also been > told that Linux will not use more than 128 MB of swap. So, how much > should I allocate? Can I change it later without having to reinstall > everything? The machine is a dual-processor workstation that will be > used by 4-8 people concurrently for number crunching and all sorts of > simulations. > > Also, is it possible to put /tmp within swap? Is that the default? > > Thanks, > Max > > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null >
Re: swap size
On 2 Sep, Max wrote: > I'm about ready to setup a machine with 512 MB of RAM and I'm > wondering how much swap space I should allocate. I've read about the > 2x rule, but 1 GB of swap seems somewhat excessive. I've also been > told that Linux will not use more than 128 MB of swap. So, how much > should I allocate? Can I change it later without having to reinstall > everything? The machine is a dual-processor workstation that will be > used by 4-8 people concurrently for number crunching and all sorts of > simulations. > > Also, is it possible to put /tmp within swap? Is that the default? > > Thanks, > Max 1GB isn't excessive if you're going to use it all. A better rule is to try to figure out what you will need*, and make sure that real + swap is at least as large as what you need. Of course, it really does help if real > average need and you only need to hit swap on rare occasions. If it turns out that you only need 480MB, max., then you probably don't need any swap at all. OTOH, if you are running something really huge, then you might need 2GB swap, although that might turn out to be simply too large for your system. I think there is some benefit to having some swap available, but I'm not enough of a kernel guru to know exactly why. I did have a situation recently where I didn't have any swap, and I ran out of RAM, and the system shut down sshd, breaking my connection. Dunno why. * - don't forget the kernel, all the daemons, etc.etc.etc. At any rate, so long as you have disk space available, you can change the amount of swap by running "mkswap" and "swapon" with suitable partitions, and you can do this on the fly. You can even do this with swap files in the regular filesystem, but I understand this isn't recommended, for performance reasons and security reasons. I haven't done this, so I don't know how, but I'm sure it's in a HOWTO or a man page someplace. Worst case, you could add another hard drive and use it for swap space if it turns out you need more. The "correct" way to set up swap involves separate partitions, with a different partition type and a separate format; /tmp needs to be part of the regular filesystem, mounted in the usual manner, so I doubt you can share space between /tmp and the swap space. HTH, -- Stephen Ryan Debian GNU/Linux Mathematics graduate student, Dartmouth College
Re: swap usage
In an attempt to save the world from disaster, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all, > > How can I find out which programs are using swap and how much of it? ps -am should be what you want. Or maybe "ps -axmw", what I often use. -- joost witteveen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The upstream maintainer is allowed to do things different than Debian, but only if he has good reasons to do so. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: swap space
> > I asked earlier on this list about why memory is sucked up into buffers. I > appreciate the answers and thank everyone who responded. Now I have a new > question: why won't the kernel release the swap space that it apparently > needed sometime earlier? The kernel is 2.0.30 > > Here's a snapshot of /proc/meminfo. Please note that it has 29 megs of > physical memory available, but still insist on using swap space. [ snip ] Why would the kernel release the swap if it isn't necessary? You are talking about `using swap space' as if it is an activity. It isn't. The pages in the swap space just sit there. If the kernel would page them back into memory, and after some time memory became short again, it would have to write them to disk _again_. Now that would be a waste. The swapped out pages will be swapped in when they are needed, not earlier. Eric -- E.L. Meijer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | tel. office +31 40 2472189 Eindhoven Univ. of Technology | tel. lab. +31 40 2475032 Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (TAK) | tel. fax+31 40 2455054 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: swap space
On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I asked earlier on this list about why memory is sucked up into buffers. I > appreciate the answers and thank everyone who responded. Now I have a new > question: why won't the kernel release the swap space that it apparently > needed sometime earlier? The kernel is 2.0.30 > > Here's a snapshot of /proc/meminfo. Please note that it has 29 megs of > physical memory available, but still insist on using swap space. > > total:used:free: shared: buffers: cached: > Mem: 97660928 68157440 29503488 11612160 48906240 5804032 > Swap: 33026048 319488 32706560 Why should it release them? Why bother to copy 300K of very rarely accessed memory from disk into RAM when it is quite happily leaving them there, and thus having more free RAM? It doesn't swap pages back from disk to RAM until something accesses them (if I understand correctly). Jules /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \--/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Swap partition
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I used to have a 16MB swap partition on hda2 but i deleted it and added a > bigger partition using fdisk which has now become hda5. > > The problem is that when i shut down the system... it comes up with a > prompt deactivating swap...cannot find hda2. > > So basically i think that the system is still set up to use hda2 which is > now replaced with hda5... how can i reconfigure the system to use hda5? edit /etc/fstab -- Ashley Clark
Re: Swap partition
*- On 2 Sep, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about "Swap partition" > Hi all > > I used to have a 16MB swap partition on hda2 but i deleted it and added a > bigger partition using fdisk which has now become hda5. > > The problem is that when i shut down the system... it comes up with a > prompt deactivating swap...cannot find hda2. > > So basically i think that the system is still set up to use hda2 which is > now replaced with hda5... how can i reconfigure the system to use hda5? > Edit /etc/fstab and change the /dev/hda2 for the swap to /dev/hda5. -- Brian - Mechanical Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] Purdue University http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis -
Re: Swap partition
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all > > I used to have a 16MB swap partition on hda2 but i deleted it and added a > bigger partition using fdisk which has now become hda5. > > The problem is that when i shut down the system... it comes up with a > prompt deactivating swap...cannot find hda2. > > So basically i think that the system is still set up to use hda2 which is > now replaced with hda5... how can i reconfigure the system to use hda5? look at the file /etc/fstab: there should be /dev/hda5 noneswap ... instead of /dev/hda2 noneswap ... Martin -- For public PGP-key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Swap partitioning
On 19-Dec-98, Christian Lavoie took time to write : > Linux partition is: /dev/hda7 > Current swap: /dev/hda8 > New swap: /dev/hda9 > 64megs of RAM > > > > 1) Will adding another swap partition really help SOffice? sure... but not as much as more memory > 2) Where does I configure Linux to take account of swap partitions? just modify /etc/fstab, according to your setup you should have something like: /dev/hda8 noneswapsw 0 0 /dev/hda9 noneswapsw 0 0 then reboot or do swapon -a and it should enable all swaps partitions > 3) How many swap partitions Linux supports? at least 4 as far as i know, but i don't know in details in fact i've checked in /usr/src/linux/include/linux/swap.h : #defined MAX_SWAPFILES 8 so it seems to be 8 ! BTW, you can also do swap as files instead of partitions. I don't know how, and i know it's slower than partitions but can be helpful.. Patrick
