At 05:21 PM 7/25/03 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>for a while the gremlins have been playing with my PC, and although they seem
>to have gone away now I still have one remaining.
>
>When I boot up, although I don't see any error messages it hangs for a number
>of minutes when it gets the the
One thing to try is the Gnome System Monitor ( in System Tools menu ),
you can see every process on your system, and observe their memory
usage. Specifically go to preferences and add the 'VM Size' field to the
display, and you can see a real-time update of physical+swap memory
usage.
Cheers,
Original Message
Subject: Re: swap performance.
From: Distribution Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, March 18, 2003 11:03 am
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Out of interest
I assume that much of this discussion in based on the use of SCSI,
rather than IDE.
In that case of IDE. From
Out of interest
I assume that much of this discussion in based on the use of SCSI, rather
than IDE.
In that case of IDE. From what I understand you can have only 2 devices
per channel and neither devices can work at the same time (read and write
I assume). Therefore in this situation it
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Mirabella, Mathew J wrote:
Wondering what views are out there regarding the benifits in
performance, if any, in specifying the swap partition to be on a
different physical disk from the / partition?
Generally speaking it is a good idea to optimize your disk performance by
On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 16:05, Mirabella, Mathew J wrote:
Wondering what views are out there regarding the benifits in performance, if any, in
specifying the swap partition to be on a different physical disk from the /
partition?
I've always set my SWAP to be on a different physical
PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Swap Limits
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is my understanding that swap partitions are limited in size to 2GB,
Perhaps. File system limits go beyond that, now. Whether or not this still
applies to swap partitions is kind
YES, that is what you can do.
raymundo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is my understanding that swap partitions are limited in size to 2GB,
yet Red Hat's documentation points that your swap partition should be 2x
the size of your physical memory. Therefore, if you have a 2GB + of RAM,
what is
It is my understanding that swap partitions are limited in size to 2GB,
yet Red Hat's documentation points that your swap partition should be 2x
the size of your physical memory. Therefore, if you have a 2GB + of RAM,
what is the best approach for sizing your swap partition? Using multiple
Title: RE: Swap Limits
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is my understanding that swap partitions are limited in size to
2GB, yet Red Hat's documentation points that your swap partition
should be 2x the size of your physical memory. Therefore, if you
have a 2GB + of RAM, what is the best
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is my understanding that swap partitions are limited in size to 2GB,
Perhaps. File system limits go beyond that, now. Whether or not this still
applies to swap partitions is kind of murky, but it shouldn't apply to
swap *files*.
I'm not sure
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 05:33:36AM +, Edward Ivanovic wrote:
Does anyone know what the expected behaviour is if an 8GB swap partition
exists on a system with 4GB RAM? Will Linux still use the swap?
Using RH8.0 on a dual SMP Xeon server and running Oracle.
I understand that the maximum
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Javier Gostling
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 7:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Swap partition 2GB
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 05:33:36AM +, Edward Ivanovic wrote:
Does anyone know what the expected behaviour is if an 8GB swap
partition
exists
Hi,
Yes and no, first No 640 MB Ram should be enough, so i would only add a
small swap partition like 256 MB, but if you run big applications which need
this space, Yes.
Examine your swap space requirement, for example use top.
Regards
alex
-Original Message-
From: Robert Golovniov
It all depends on what the system is doing.
My knowledge of RH is limited (been working with it for about 4 months
now), but it would seem that the installer automatically sets up the
swap as twice your amount of RAM.
This can be manually configured. For example though, my laptop that is
used
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:36:29PM +0100, Alan Harding wrote:
I have the opportunity to upgrade the memory in my Laptop from 128Mb to
256Mb, however I have a question.
Will I need to modify the swap space?? At the moment I dont know how to
tell whether its being ustilised at all, but I seem
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:37:28 -0400
Calbazana, Al [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When doing a df -h, I noticed that swap does not show up? Any way I
can get this to show?
free
--
I've given up trying to change the world. I'm going to toilet train
it so that I never have to change it again.
--
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Calbazana, Al wrote:
When doing a df -h, I noticed that swap does not show up? Any way I can get
this to show?
Why would you want swap to show up with df? According to the man page,
df - report filesystem disk space usage Swap is not a file system, so
if you want to
AFAIK, swap space is twice of your physical
memoy...
1GB swap space is too big, i think that's the
reason
why you encountered that error..
- Original Message -
From:
madhvi
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 5:30
PM
Subject: swap space
Hi
I
make a swap file
man mkswap
there is a useful example inm there. to automatically enable it at boot, add an
appropriate entry in /etc/fstab.
-G
On 03-Jun-02 Devon Harding - GTHLA wrote:
How do I increase my swap size in RHL 7.3 using existing partitions?
_
*smacks himself* Oh.. THAT kind of file.. I should have remembered... I
make partitions in files all the time (usually ext2 tho) :)
-Statux
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 17:49 15 Feb 2002, Hidong Kim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I have a machine with an 800 MB swap partition. To run a particular
| application, I need 1,000 MB swap. It appears that I can't create a
| swap file bigger than 4,880 kB. Is this correct? How would I
You could try adding another hard drive.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Hidong Kim wrote:
Hi,
I have a machine with an 800 MB swap partition. To run a particular
application, I need 1,000 MB swap. It appears that I can't create a
swap file bigger than 4,880 kB. Is this correct? How would I get
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 05:49:49PM -0800, Hidong Kim wrote:
Hi,
I have a machine with an 800 MB swap partition. To run a particular
application, I need 1,000 MB swap. It appears that I can't create a
swap file bigger than 4,880 kB. Is this correct? How would I get more
swap space
On 17:49 15 Feb 2002, Hidong Kim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I have a machine with an 800 MB swap partition. To run a particular
| application, I need 1,000 MB swap. It appears that I can't create a
| swap file bigger than 4,880 kB. Is this correct? How would I get more
| swap space without
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:49:49 -0800
Hidong Kim [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
Hi,
I have a machine with an 800 MB swap partition. To run a particular
application, I need 1,000 MB swap. It appears that I can't create a
swap file bigger than 4,880 kB. Is this correct? How would I get
more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hidong Kim wrote:
I have a machine with an 800 MB swap partition. To run a particular
application, I need 1,000 MB swap. It appears that I can't create a
swap file bigger than 4,880 kB. Is this correct? How would I get more
swap space without
Thanks!
I wasn't specifying the blocksize and count correctly. I have a 300 MB
swap file now. Cheers,
Hidong
Ben Logan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 05:49:49PM -0800, Hidong Kim wrote:
Hi,
I have a machine with an 800 MB swap partition. To run a particular
application, I
just go www.pcquest.com/linux read the article ble gopi garge on performence
tuneing.
he say s putting swap ad hda1 increses the performence and it's tried by my i
agree with it.
"Mikkel L. Ellertson" wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, mjs wrote:
would my system run better if I had 2 swap
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, mjs wrote:
would my system run better if I had 2 swap partitions of say 128 megs each
then having 1 partition of 256 megs??
If they are on different drives, them two 128M partitions will be faster
then one 256M. This is assuming that you are actualy using swap space.
On
Thanks for the explanation. In fact I do run and X and Netscape.
Hidong
"Mikkel L. Ellertson" wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Hidong Kim wrote:
Hi,
I often see on my system that it's using a lot of swap, but not all of
its ram. Here's a free:
total used
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Hidong Kim wrote:
Hi,
I often see on my system that it's using a lot of swap, but not all of
its ram. Here's a free:
total used free sharedbuffers
cached
Mem:387272 236548 150724 32244 8448
59760
-/+
Chuck Carson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This maybe be a dumb question or something I just never noticed, but why
does swap space not display in 'df'? I thought swap was mounted as
/tmp.
It isn't. Try "free" instead.
Under Solaris it behaves this way. Is it possible to modify RH6.2 to behave
Under Linux, swap is its own partition type. /tmp is where programs will
store temporary data, but linux doesn't store swap in a file, like some
other operating systems do (Windows, OS/2)...my understanding is that
Solaris also uses swap space in a partition of its own.
Giving the OS its own
This is my understanding, yes.
If you're using a whole gig of swap, you're going to be Unhappy.
The old rule of thumb about doubling your RAM in swap doesn't seem to
apply any more in these days of cheap RAM. I think the reasoning behind
it was so that if your system crashed, it could spit the
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Gary Stiehr wrote:
Hi,
I will be installing RedHat Linux 6.2 on a server with 1GB of
RAM. I have doubts about creating 1GB worth of swap partitions. The
swap is only used when RAM is full and there is a request to load
something else into RAM, right? I would
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Gary Stiehr wrote:
I will be installing RedHat Linux 6.2 on a server with 1GB of
RAM. I have doubts about creating 1GB worth of swap partitions. The
swap is only used when RAM is full and there is a request to load
something else into RAM, right? I would
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:25:31PM -0500, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
Is there a way to list your swap partitions and files? I thought
"mount" would do it, but there's nothing related to swap there.
Also, I have heard alot of things about swap sizes - some people say
it should be the same MB as
Is there a way to list your swap partitions and files? I thought "mount" would do
it, but there's nothing related to swap there.
man df
Also, I have heard alot of things about swap sizes - some people say it should be
the same MB as you RAM, some say double your RAM, some people say it has
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
Is there a way to list your swap partitions and files? I thought "mount" would do
it, but there's nothing related to swap there.
fdisk -l
Bret
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
try swapon -s to list your swap partitions. as for swap size, i think it
all depends on what the box will be used for. in a production environment,
with apache or db's on it, i'd go with double the size of ram at least. for
a box at home that does ppp, X, netscape and compiling a few things,
for a while now, you can have swap partitions larger than 128MB. However,
if you do setup a lot of swap, and have multiple disks, you will get
better performance with multiple partitions on seperate disks.
hth
charles
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
people say it has to be in 128
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
Is there a way to list your swap partitions and files? I thought "mount" would do
it, but there's nothing related to swap there.
Also, I have heard alot of things about swap sizes - some people say it should be
the same MB as you RAM, some say
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Manuel A. Camacho Q. wrote:
I'd caution keeping the insane amount of swap, especially on a mail
server. Yes, 99% of the time it won't use a fraction of the swap, but that
1% of the time it will come in handy or keep the machine from running out
of memory. Unless you
Eric,
You may also want to look at cfdisk. The user interface, though
requiring ncursors, is nicer IMO. Plus, the man page of fdisk says
something like: "Don't use fdisk 'cause it's buggy. Use cfdisk instead."
(!?!?!?!)
Anyway, I found cfdisk more intuitive than fdisk. YMMV.
Regards
Gustav
I've never done this, but should be something as:
1.) Run fdisk, be careful to modify only your swap.
2.) Remove swap.
3.) Recreate swap the size you want.
4.) Use the remaining space for a new partition.
5.) Move there the data you want.
-Manuel.
-Mensaje original-
De: eric clover
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, eric clover wrote:
hello
first , thank you to all that have helped me on my other questions.
next ,
my boss set up a mail server , with 256m ram , and a (I don't know why he
did this) 1g (yes , I said 1 gig) swap!
we are lucky if the server uses like over 500k of the
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Hidong Kim wrote:
You can use fdisk to repartition the 1 G space into a smaller swap and
another regular (ext2) partition. If you're going to reconfigure your
swap space, you'll get better performance with one large swap instead of
multiple smaller ones. Good luck,
Steve Feehan wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Hidong Kim wrote:
You can use fdisk to repartition the 1 G space into a smaller swap and
another regular (ext2) partition. If you're going to reconfigure your
swap space, you'll get better performance with one large swap instead of
multiple
I'd caution keeping the insane amount of swap, especially on a mail
server. Yes, 99% of the time it won't use a fraction of the swap, but that
1% of the time it will come in handy or keep the machine from running out
of memory. Unless you are cramped for space, I'd keep the swap around.
You can use fdisk to repartition the 1 G space into a smaller swap and
another regular (ext2) partition. If you're going to reconfigure your
swap space, you'll get better performance with one large swap instead of
multiple smaller ones. Good luck,
Hidong
eric clover wrote:
hello
first
At 03:11 PM 4/16/00 -0500, you wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, "Robert" == Robert Fausey wrote:
Robert Which would give me better performance one large swap
Robert partition or two or more smaller partitions. The
Robert system is used for serious number crunching would a
Robert 3GB
Hal DeVore wrote:
I don't _think_ this has changed up thru the 2.2 kernels but you
should verify it from a second source:
Linux is unable to make use of more than 128MB in a single swap
partition. There is a fixed size table involved that has room
for map entries that cover only 128MB
Messages on this list at 6.0 or 6.1 said now the swap could be up to 2
gigabytes.. that's the largest acceptable I've seen listed anywhere. I
read a note (along with my latest upgrade) that said the kernel
automaticly balances reads / writes to multiple swaps to maximize performance.
Give a look at:
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/developer/library/swaptip2.html
HTH - Regards
Gustav
brian davison wrote:
Messages on this list at 6.0 or 6.1 said now the swap could be up to 2
gigabytes.. that's the largest acceptable I've seen listed anywhere. I
read a note (along
Remember you can also try a "swap file", too.
-Manuel.
Robert Fausey wrote:
I am about to install 6.2 on a quad xeon with 4GB of memory.
Currently I have a 2GB swap partition and when the system shuts down
I receive "INIT: ld "3" respawning too fast". I remember reading somewhere
that
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, "Robert" == Robert Fausey wrote:
Robert Which would give me better performance one large swap
Robert partition or two or more smaller partitions. The
Robert system is used for serious number crunching would a
Robert 3GB partition be big enough or should I use a
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Ketan wrote:
guys,
how do I increase the swap partition size w/o repartitioning ?
You can't increase partition sizes without repartitioning obviously.
You can add a swap file though:
dd if=/dev/zero
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Ketan wrote:
guys,
how do I increase the swap partition size w/o repartitioning ?
You can't increase partition sizes without repartitioning obviously.
You can add a swap file though:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/swap.file bs=1k count=1024
mkswap -v1
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Edward Schernau wrote:
Subject:
It means 2 things. 1) That RH is lame for FORCING you to make a swap
partition, esp when you clearly don't need it. And 2) (the real answer)
P.S. Anyone else bothered by the fact that you have to make a swap
part.?
Bother me?
Subject:
Swap
From:
Manoj Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
Iam having a Linux 6.0 mail server. At the time of installation I made 150Mb
swap space. But when yesterday I tried the "top" command I found the
following,
swap 0K av,0K used,0K free
It means 2
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Edward Schernau wrote:
P.S. Anyone else bothered by the fact that you have to make a swap
part.?
No.
Swap's good to have around for when you manage to load up your machine
heavily enough to run out of real RAM (for instance, on my machine with
128 MB of RAM, running
Hello Virtual Origami,
Once you wrote about "Re: swap":
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Edward Schernau wrote:
P.S.Anyone else bothered by the fact that you have to make a swap
part.?
No.
Swap's good to have around for when you manage to load up your machine
heavily eno
On 03-Nov-99 Rick Knebel opined:
Hi,
When I installed I made a swap partition of 250 Megs, but it seems that
linux is only showing 130 Megs.
Is there a reason for this?
Can I get linux to see all my swap space somehow?
Because there is a limit for a single partition of 128M. If you want
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 09:54:53PM -0600, Uncle Meat wrote:
On 03-Nov-99 Rick Knebel opined:
Hi,
When I installed I made a swap partition of 250 Megs, but it seems
that linux is only showing 130 Megs.
Is there a reason for this?
Can I get linux to see all my swap space somehow?
What version of Redhat(i.e. mkswap) are you using?
Older versions only recognize partitions as large as 128Mb.
6.x versions I know support larger swaps by default.
J.
Hi,
When I installed I made a swap partition of 250 Megs, but it seems that
linux is only showing 130 Megs.
Is there a
We have been asked not to keep this disussion up on the list.
There's hardly any point to discussing it off-list.
We keep saying the same things over and over so it is hardly productive.
But one more time:
1. There are certaily pathological situations where swap files work
better;
Old news. The 2.2.x kernels support 128MB swap. However, the install
for some reason still does not set it up properly. Turn off swap
(swapoff) reformat the swap partition by hand (mkswap) and turn it back
on (swapon). That should have you fixed.
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 10:18:06PM -0800,
The 2.2.x kernels support larger, however, I beleive it's the RH
install that does not yet know how to set it up properly. Just
do it by hand.
swapoff /dev/hda(#swap)
mkswap /dev/hda(#swap) # sectors in partition
swapon /dev/hda(#swap)
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 09:54:53PM -0600, Uncle Meat
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Rick Knebel wrote:
When I installed I made a swap partition of 250 Megs, but it seems that
linux is only showing 130 Megs.
The max size of a Linux swap partition is 128 MB (really about 125 on most
hard drives). If you need more, create more than one swap
partition. You're
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Rick Knebel wrote:
When I installed I made a swap partition of 250 Megs, but it seems that
linux is only showing 130 Megs.
The max size of a Linux swap partition is 128 MB (really about 125 on most
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 02:45:20AM -0500, Jerry Winegarden wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Rick Knebel wrote:
When I installed I made a swap partition of 250 Megs, but it seems that
linux is only showing 130 Megs.
The max size of a Linux
Can anyone tell me why I can't get the 265041 blocks I have allocated for
my swap space. 'cat /proc/meminfo' shows this:
total:used:free: shared: buffers: cached:
Mem: 130859008 126644224 4214784 57282560 74412032 16134144
Swap: 1338859520 133885952
MemTotal:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Can anyone tell me why I can't get the 265041 blocks I have allocated
for my swap space. 'cat /proc/meminfo' shows this:
total:used:free: shared: buffers: cached: Mem:
130859008 126644224 4214784 57282560 74412032 16134144 Swap:
133885952
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, Bench wrote:
Swap Total and SwapFree are 130748 KB, which is approximately half
of the total blocks I allocated for my swap space.
Aside from that, I wonder my SwapFree is the same as SwapTotal, which
means it's not being used.
Can anyone explain why these are
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, Bench wrote:
Can anyone tell me why I can't get the 265041 blocks I have allocated for
my swap space. 'cat /proc/meminfo' shows this:
Linux imposes a 128MB limit per-swapfile. You can use multiple swap
partitions and/or swapfiles, however, to work around this problem.
Yes, since it hangs at the unmounting every time...
---
Matt Housh email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MicroComputer SpecialistUniversity of Tulsa
Engineering and Natural
re: disk druid
...unformatted for the install , and everything went along smoothly at
first until the partitioning with
...but I DID and it WAS put in as a linux "swap" partition fs .. not linux
native or fat16. so I ask to you
not to diss the effort Red Hat has put into Disk Druid, but I
When I have had this happen, I've used fdisk instead of disk druid and
evrything came out fine...
david
At 08:13 PM 4/26/98 -0400, you wrote:
Hey everyone .. I was trying to install RH5 on a friend's computer. I had
a partition completely left unformatted for the install , and everything
went
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Db wrote:
I made an instalation for RH 4.2 and I made two partitions. First
partition ( 50 Mb ) for swap and the second for linux.
did I read somewhere it was a heathen thing to do...ie; make swap the
FIRST partition?
It depends. The primary concept was that the
did I read somewhere it was a heathen thing to do...ie; make swap the
FIRST partition?
There's no real reason why it couldn't be the first partition. Bear in
mind though, that if you're going to boot from that drive your kernel needs
to be physically within the first 1024 cylinders.
It's
I made an instalation for RH 4.2 and I made two partitions. First
partition ( 50 Mb ) for swap and the second for linux.
did I read somewhere it was a heathen thing to do...ie; make swap the
FIRST partition?
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
On a SCO system though you MUST have at least RAMSIZE+10% as when it
crashes, it writes the contents of ram to the swap partition. If there
isn't enough room, it will simply overwrite your root partition with
the
excess.
Gee, that's very thoughtful of it! I wonder how long it took the
Well, when I ran out of my 128ram+16mb swap, X closed down all applications
and dropped to console. It's strange but I didn't think I had so many apps
running that my system couldn't handle. It seems that I am able to run
more apps under Windows although its multitasking isn't that good.
At
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which leads to my question, what really does happen with Linux when you
use up all the memory, RAM + swap? What is the worst that has happened
to anyone? EMWTK.
Typically some of your applications will segfault. Linux itself will not
crash under
shouldn't swap size be ram/2 rather than ram x 2?
like if you already have a large amnt. of ram,
then the chances of swap being used would be slimmer,
so why is there a need for 2x swap ?
There's really no hard and fast rule. Firstly, though, the 2x rule
(actually more like 2xRAM + 10%)
On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Rick Forrester wrote:
shouldn't swap size be ram/2 rather than ram x 2? like if you already
have a large amnt. of ram, then the chances of swap being used would
be slimmer, so why is there a need for 2x swap ?
Both postitions are probably wide of the mark. The
87 matches
Mail list logo
