Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote:
If your system is spending a lot of time moving data to and from swap
when it is not memory-starved, or if it is stalling memory allocations
that it should be able to fulfill from free RAM, that's a concern.
That is exactly it. I emphaises th words " when it is not memor
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 10:04 +0200:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ahmed Al-Hindawi" writes
> Programs like cp(1) uses mmap(2) to copy things, so if you cp(1) a big
> file, it is not uncommon for some programs to end up on swap. Until they
Only for files
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 11:22:00PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Shawn wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 02:21, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > You probably can't get away with the old gcc, since the binary
> > > format changed For No Good Reason(tm).
> >
> > Didn't the GNU people say they had to change
thanks for all the help guys,
I appreciate it. And sorry for using the word "dude"; I got a little
agitated because people always expact them selves to be superior than
youself because you are the one asking the question and they are answering!!
Thanks anyway
___
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ahmed Al-Hindawi" writes
:
>>If your system is spending a lot of time moving data to and from swap when
>>it is not memory-starved, or if it is stalling memory allocations that it
>>should be able to fulfill from free RAM, that's a concern.
>
>That is exactly it.
If your system is spending a lot of time moving data to and from swap when
it is not memory-starved, or if it is stalling memory allocations that it
should be able to fulfill from free RAM, that's a concern.
That is exactly it. I emphaises th words " when it is not memory-starved ".
It isn't mem
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote:
> dude, I have a third of my memory free!!
Dude, there's a difference between "free" and "available".
Dude, what makes you think that the swap in use doesn't refer
to pages that are also in main memory, but marked clean because
they've already been written to a backing sto
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote:
> It is simply swapping when it shouldn't.
>
> Opening Mozilla, Opera, Netscape, DrJava, jEdit, Emacs, PrBoom, XBubbles,
> and Nautilus at the same time on a 233Mhz machine should fill up the memory
> (160Mb) but instead it has decided to use the swap disk for a measly 50Mb
Shawn wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 02:21, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > You probably can't get away with the old gcc, since the binary
> > format changed For No Good Reason(tm).
>
> Didn't the GNU people say they had to change it to be more ABI compliant
> with the 'standard'?
I will believe that wh
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote:
dude, I have a third of my memory free!!
does vmstat agree? is kernel/userland in sync?
--
Matthias Buelow; [EMAIL PROTECTED],informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de}
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/li
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 15:00, Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote:
> dude, I have a third of my memory free!!
Please read the following:
http://www.daemonnews.org/21/freebsd_vm.html
The above will give great indepth examples of how one version (I assume
it's still the same roughly) of the FreeBSD VM works.
dude, I have a third of my memory free!!
_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://list
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote:
This is not the problem. We know what is the purpose of swap data. It is
swaping when there is more than suffiecient memory to do so. There is
disk activity on the swap disk (I have a seperate disk for faster
access) even when there is enough memory to suit my request and
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote:
This is not the problem. We know what is the purpose of swap data. It is
swaping when there is more than suffiecient memory to do so. There is
disk activity on the swap disk (I have a seperate disk for faster
access) even when there is enough memory to suit my request and
This is not the problem. We know what is the purpose of swap data. It is
swaping when there is more than suffiecient memory to do so. There is disk
activity on the swap disk (I have a seperate disk for faster access) even
when there is enough memory to suit my request and more.
It is simply swa
hi,
I recompiled my kernel yesterday and that game me an entire 4Mb more...WOW!!
sarcasim killed the cat, but anyway. A debug option, *NOT THE* degug option,
in the config file of the kernel was activated so I commented the line out
and I got an extra 4Mb !! WOW. It was this line:
Options
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 02:21, Terry Lambert wrote:
> You probably can't get away with the old gcc, since the binary
> format changed For No Good Reason(tm).
Didn't the GNU people say they had to change it to be more ABI compliant
with the 'standard'?
--
Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://drevil.war
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
Well, the 5.0, old -CURRENT and 4.8 have never touch the swap, until
5.1- CURRENT. My system has 256mb ram and it's always touch swap now. If
I compile some stuff, sometime it will get around 300mb swap. Current, I
only have Gnome 2.3.x and Opera running, so what my top l
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> Well, it still should not touch the swap since I have very few stuff
> running with 256mb ram. I just reboot and start with Gnome 2.3.x and Opera,
> then doing the update (compile/install) gnome-panel. Now, it's already use
> the swap in minutes and later hours I will get
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> Well, the 5.0, old -CURRENT and 4.8 have never touch the swap, until 5.1-
> CURRENT. My system has 256mb ram and it's always touch swap now. If I
> compile some stuff, sometime it will get around 300mb swap. Current, I only
> have Gnome 2.3.x and Opera running, so what my
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:46:12 -0400, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:53:21 -0400, Bill Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote:
Hi,
I have 160Mb of SDRAM (PC100) on a 233Mhz CyrixInstead machine and I
seem to have memory manga
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:53:21 -0400, Bill Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote:
Hi,
I have 160Mb of SDRAM (PC100) on a 233Mhz CyrixInstead machine and I
seem to have memory mangament problems. The BIOS indicates I have 160,
so does the BSD bootstrap prog
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:53:21 -0400, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote:
Hi,
I have 160Mb of SDRAM (PC100) on a 233Mhz CyrixInstead machine and I
seem to have memory mangament problems. The BIOS indicates I have 160,
so does the BSD bootstrap program.
When I launch GNOME
Ahmed Al-Hindawi wrote:
Hi,
I have 160Mb of SDRAM (PC100) on a 233Mhz CyrixInstead machine and I
seem to have memory mangament problems. The BIOS indicates I have 160,
so does the BSD bootstrap program.
When I launch GNOME 2.2 everythings is good as gold untill I open the
System monitor program.
Hi,
I have 160Mb of SDRAM (PC100) on a 233Mhz CyrixInstead machine and I
seem to have memory mangament problems. The BIOS indicates I have 160,
so does the BSD bootstrap program.
When I launch GNOME 2.2 everythings is good as gold untill I open the
System monitor program. It says that I have 149
25 matches
Mail list logo
