Actually, si and so refer to entire processes being swapped, not
paging traffic, so they'll never be non-zero on a modern Linux system.
I'm not sure what type of Linux system you're using, but this is not true at
least for what's in front of me (FC6)
$ vmstat 1 1
procs
zhasper == zhasper [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
zhasper On 22/02/07, Howard Lowndes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's recommended that your swap space should be 2x your RAM. In
your case it's .2x
zhasper Blanket statement != useful.
Depends on what *else* you're using swsap for. If you want
Sonia == Sonia Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sonia * On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:16:04PM +1100, Peter Hardy wrote:
Sonia correct me if I'm wrong vmstat is your friend. A figure
Sonia consistently 0 for the so column (swap out) often indicates
Sonia problems. My understanding is the memory
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:16:04 +1100, Peter Hardy uttered
I'm a little puzzled by this:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:50050844816352 188732 0 1566443165540
-/+ buffers/cache: 14941683510916
Swap:
* On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:05:05PM +1100, Amos Shapira wrote:
On 23/02/07, Peter Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IBM do a good book on Linux Performance Tuning, which explains this
well.
Oh, cool. I'll have to add it to my reading list. Thanks.
I was looking for a link to include in
On 22/02/07, Peter Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:24 +1100, Zhasper wrote:
On 22/02/07, Peter Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by this:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:50050844816352
Peter Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:24 +1100, Howard Lowndes wrote:
It's recommended that your swap space should be 2x your RAM. In your
case it's .2x
Has anybody seriously made such a recommendation this millenium?
early 2.4 kernels, linus, alan, rik, etc, said
Peter Hardy wrote:
It's recommended that your swap space should be 2x your
RAM. In your
case it's .2x
Has anybody seriously made such a recommendation this millenium?
It was only briefly a good recommendation for Windows 95, which I recall ran
slower when physical ram + swap went over
I think you'll find the formula dated to the time when most people
said I really need my total memory address space to be n megabytes,
but I can only possibly afford n/3 megabytes of RAM, so I have to just
make do with 2n/3 being on a relatively slow hard disk.
This certainly applied when I
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:57:48PM +1100, Howard Lowndes wrote:
Michael Chesterton wrote:
Peter Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:24 +1100, Howard Lowndes wrote:
It's recommended that your swap space should be 2x your RAM. In your
case it's .2x
Has anybody
On 23/02/07, Martin Visser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you'll find the formula dated to the time when most people
said I really need my total memory address space to be n megabytes,
but I can only possibly afford n/3 megabytes of RAM, so I have to just
make do with 2n/3 being on a
* On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:16:04PM +1100, Peter Hardy wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by this:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:50050844816352 188732 0 1566443165540
-/+ buffers/cache: 14941683510916
Swap:
Hey hey.
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 14:09 +1100, Sonia Hamilton wrote:
correct me if I'm wrong
vmstat is your friend. A figure consistently 0 for the so column
(swap out) often indicates problems. My understanding is the memory
manager in 2.6 will use a lot of swap on purpose.
/correct me if I'm
On 23/02/07, Peter Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IBM do a good book on Linux Performance Tuning, which explains this
well.
Oh, cool. I'll have to add it to my reading list. Thanks.
I was looking for a link to include in a to read list when I found the
following review:
I'm a little puzzled by this:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:50050844816352 188732 0 1566443165540
-/+ buffers/cache: 14941683510916
Swap: 10526161052616 0
Is this sort of usage normal?
This one time, at band camp, Peter Hardy wrote:
Is this sort of usage normal? Filling a gigabyte of swap space while
just under 1.5GB of memory is going towards buffers seems odd to me. And
vmstat reports no usage of this swap space over a 15 minute period.
Just trust it. It knows what it's
On 22/02/07, Peter Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by this:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:50050844816352 188732 0 1566443165540
-/+ buffers/cache: 14941683510916
Swap: 1052616
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 05:22 +, Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Peter Hardy wrote:
Is this sort of usage normal? Filling a gigabyte of swap space while
just under 1.5GB of memory is going towards buffers seems odd to me. And
vmstat reports no usage of this swap
On Thursday 22 February 2007 14:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by this:
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 5005084 4816352 188732 0 156644 3165540
-/+ buffers/cache: 1494168 3510916
Swap:
On 22/02/07, Howard Lowndes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's recommended that your swap space should be 2x your RAM. In your
case it's .2x
Blanket statement != useful.
On a desktop, where I'm putting OOo in the background and letting
firefox chew all my ram for a while - yes, I'll take lots of
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Peter Hardy wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by this:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:50050844816352 188732 0 1566443165540
-/+ buffers/cache: 14941683510916
Swap: 1052616
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:24 +1100, Zhasper wrote:
On 22/02/07, Peter Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by this:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:50050844816352 188732 0 1566443165540
-/+
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:24 +1100, Howard Lowndes wrote:
It's recommended that your swap space should be 2x your RAM. In your
case it's .2x
Has anybody seriously made such a recommendation this millenium?
In my experience, the formula doesn't really scale at all. I suppose, in
certain
23 matches
Mail list logo
