Chris Laprise writes:
> Can Qubes access all of that RAM? Look at the total_memory figure from
> 'xl info'.
Yes, it can.
One additional data point: after the typical one-minute boot time for a qube,
it's using no swap space, and dom0 is also using no swap space, even though
both do have swap
On 08/13/2018 03:26 AM, Kelly Dean wrote:
Unman writes:
I don't recognise this on a somewhat under powered laptop with HDD -
definitely not "minutes at a time". Is there something significant about
the disks that you cite, or are those just examples?
Nothing significant about #21 in particul
Unman writes:
> I don't recognise this on a somewhat under powered laptop with HDD -
> definitely not "minutes at a time". Is there something significant about
> the disks that you cite, or are those just examples?
Nothing significant about #21 in particular. The thrashing procs are whichever
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 12:44:18AM -0400, Chris Laprise wrote:
> On 08/10/2018 03:02 PM, Kelly Dean wrote:
> > Has anybody else used both Qubes 3.2 and 4.0 on a system with a HD, not
> > SSD? Have you noticed the disk thrashing to be far worse under 4.0? I
> > suspect it might have something to d
On 08/10/2018 03:02 PM, Kelly Dean wrote:
Has anybody else used both Qubes 3.2 and 4.0 on a system with a HD, not SSD?
Have you noticed the disk thrashing to be far worse under 4.0? I suspect it
might have something to do with the new use of LVM combining snapshots with
thin provisioning.
The
Has anybody else used both Qubes 3.2 and 4.0 on a system with a HD, not SSD?
Have you noticed the disk thrashing to be far worse under 4.0? I suspect it
might have something to do with the new use of LVM combining snapshots with
thin provisioning.
The problem seems to be triggered by individual
