On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 2:57:31 AM UTC+2, Marcus Linsner wrote:
> "For example, consider a case where you have zero swap and system is nearly
> running out of RAM. The kernel will take memory from e.g. Firefox (it can do
> this because Firefox is running executable code that has been
On a NUMA system it could also be swapping pages from an efficient node
to a less efficient distant node.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"qubes-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:06:54 PM UTC+2, Brendan Hoar wrote:
> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 3:21:27 PM UTC-4, Marcus Linsner wrote:
> > The good news is that I've realized that the OOM triggering was legit: I
> > had firefox set to use 12 cores at once and 14GiB of RAM was clearly
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 3:21:27 PM UTC-4, Marcus Linsner wrote:
> The good news is that I've realized that the OOM triggering was legit: I had
> firefox set to use 12 cores at once and 14GiB of RAM was clearly not enough!
> (8 and no ccache was good though - did compile it twice like so)
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 8:03:52 PM UTC+2, Marcus Linsner wrote:
> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 7:50:14 PM UTC+2, Marcus Linsner wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 7:35:26 PM UTC+2, Marcus Linsner wrote:
> > > $ cat /proc/meminfo
> > > MemTotal:7454500 kB
> > > MemFree:
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 7:50:14 PM UTC+2, Marcus Linsner wrote:
> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 7:35:26 PM UTC+2, Marcus Linsner wrote:
> > $ cat /proc/meminfo
> > MemTotal:7454500 kB
> > MemFree: 5635088 kB
> > MemAvailable:6574676 kB
> > Buffers: 53832 kB
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 7:35:26 PM UTC+2, Marcus Linsner wrote:
> $ cat /proc/meminfo
> MemTotal:7454500 kB
> MemFree: 5635088 kB
> MemAvailable:6574676 kB
> Buffers: 53832 kB
> Cached: 1094368 kB
> SwapCached:0 kB
> Active:
On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 9:02:31 PM UTC+2, 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
On Saturday, August 11, 2018 at 3:02:31 AM UTC+8, 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
