Mario Goebbels wrote:
I bet zfs complicates things, given that it will suck up quite a lot
of memory
(although it's supposed to give some back if things get too tight).
Yet it doesn't appear to give back memory as needed.
My desktop machine has 8GB of RAM. a) For lotsa caching and b) because
I bet zfs complicates things, given that it will suck up quite a lot of memory
(although it's supposed to give some back if things get too tight).
Yet it doesn't appear to give back memory as needed.
My desktop machine has 8GB of RAM. a) For lotsa caching and b) because I
can (and RAM was chea
> Now, one of my questions remains a mystery: why did
> the system initially stop
> giving out virtual memory when it hit approx half of
> its RAM (8Gb of 16Gb)
> and no swap space was enabled? Was it just a
> coincidence?
>
> Jim Laurent suggests that Solaris can be configured
> without swap wha
Now, one of my questions remains a mystery: why did the system initially stop
giving out virtual memory when it hit approx half of its RAM (8Gb of 16Gb)?
Was it just a coincidence?
Jim Laurent suggests that Solaris can be configured without swap whatsoever,
and I thought so too - until I hit thes
First of all, thank you all for the links and suggestions. The first two
comments
in Jim Laurent's entry do seem like they are about my situation :)
As they write, "It is possible to be out of swap without being out of memory
...
because memory allocations count immediately against swap but do
Hi,
Mike Gerdts wrote:
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
Anon Y Mous wrote:
as we tested scaling and put more load on the servers (i.e. allowing
Apache to spawn more children), we were surprised to see that the system
doesn't tend to go below 8Gb (half) of the avail
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> Anon Y Mous wrote:
>>>
>>> as we tested scaling and put more load on the servers (i.e. allowing
>>> Apache to spawn more children), we were surprised to see that the system
>>> doesn't tend to go below 8Gb (half) of the available RAM. Further
Anon Y Mous wrote:
as we tested scaling and put more load on the servers (i.e. allowing
Apache to spawn more children), we were surprised to see that the system
doesn't tend to go below 8Gb (half) of the available RAM. Further requests
for memory allocation failed (can't fork new processes incl
> as we tested scaling and put more load on the servers (i.e. allowing
> Apache to spawn more children), we were surprised to see that the system
> doesn't tend to go below 8Gb (half) of the available RAM. Further requests
> for memory allocation failed (can't fork new processes including new ss
I think I am misunderstanding something about Solaris virtual memory...
I was running some tests on our new T5120 with 16Gb RAM with Solaris 10u6
(and previously got in the same situation with an X4600 and OpenSolaris 105):
when the systems arrived, we assumed they have "lots of RAM" for our task
10 matches
Mail list logo
