On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Reginald Beardsley via openindiana-discuss
wrote:
> My long standing rule is swap = 8 x core.
Hmm. I could see that working for small systems, but I have some machines
where that would require dedicating a terabyte of disk to swap. That
doesn't seem reasonable
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015, Ian Collins wrote:
Eh? every contemporary desktop/server OS has and uses virtual memory. The
need for backing store for swapping is much less these days, but it is still
used and supported.
Virtual memory is used even when there is no swap device. For
example, it is us
Funny. I recommend getting more ram. Ram is cheap, compared to the past.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 11, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Reginald Beardsley via openindiana-discuss
> wrote:
>
> My long standing rule is swap = 8 x core. This is primarily to accommodate
> having a large number of PDFs and
My long standing rule is swap = 8 x core. This is primarily to accommodate
having a large number of PDFs and other processes open at the same time. Many
MCU manuals run 1000+ pages. But sometimes I just want to run a ridiculously
large problem. Disk space is cheap, so there's no benefit to sa
Jake,
I had not considered creating a ZFS vdev on the SSD, but that's an excellent
point. Thanks. I think I'll do some tests with an HDD and an SSD with various
configurations.
Ian,
If swap equal core what's the benefit? I've never considered swapping as
"virtual memory", Just part of ti
Oh, and additionally, swap can serve as a useful safety valve if memory
gets fragmented and the kernel has to allocate a large, contiguous page for
some kind of DMA buffer or the like. I don't know if that's a common
scenario on OI, but I've seen it happen on Linux.
--
D. Brodbeck
System Adminis
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Jacob Ritorto
wrote:
> If the swap partition ends up being on ZFS, it'll garner the additional
> benefit of being able to be periodically scrubbed to check for degradation
> of the SSD (these only accommodate a finite number of write cycles, but
> most modern ones
I've used swap plain partitions on zfs-rooted machines as well as
multi-disk zfs swap, both to good effect.
Even if secondary storage (SSD) can never be as fast as primary (RAM),
it'll should allow the job to proceed when the batch process peaks its
memory utilisation. Since it's batch processing
Reginald Beardsley via openindiana-discuss wrote:
> Having been a witness to the conflicts over adding virtual memory to
> Minix I find it ironic that the accepted practice now is to include
> virtual memory in the OS, but not use it. For a long time everyone
> used BSD because it had virtual m
Gee guys, I would have thought from my comment about interleaving swap on two
disks in 4.x that it would be obvious that I understand it would be slower.
And in fact, know quite a bit about virtual memory implementations. At the
time, I tested interleaving 2 & 3 drives. The improvement with
11 декабря 2015 г. 20:45:34 CET, Reginald Beardsley via openindiana-discuss
пишет:
>I have only occasional need to run problems larger than main memory (16
>GB at present), so I can't justify replacing all the DRAM for an
>infrequent need. The drop in SSD prices has me contemplating adding a
>1
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
On 11/12/2015 20:45, Ian Collins wrote:.
I don't think you can add the drive as a drive, but you could create a
pool with a single volume on on it and add that volume with "swap -a
/dev/zvol/dsk//.
Adding a swap partition or slice from a drive worked just fine last time
I
On 11/12/2015 20:45, Ian Collins wrote:
Reginald Beardsley via openindiana-discuss wrote:
I have only occasional need to run problems larger than main memory
> (16 GB at present), so I can't justify replacing all the DRAM for an
> infrequent need. The drop in SSD prices has me contemplating ad
Reginald Beardsley via openindiana-discuss wrote:
I have only occasional need to run problems larger than main memory
> (16 GB at present), so I can't justify replacing all the DRAM for an
> infrequent need. The drop in SSD prices has me contemplating adding
> a 128 GB SSD as a swap device. The
I have only occasional need to run problems larger than main memory (16 GB at
present), so I can't justify replacing all the DRAM for an infrequent need.
The drop in SSD prices has me contemplating adding a 128 GB SSD as a swap
device. The SSD latency and IOPS specs look as if they might be a
15 matches
Mail list logo
