Am 28.09.20 um 19:32 schrieb Dave Howorth:
>> the far slower copy from the list-server is silently purged by
>> intention to avoid receive ever ymessage twice on mailing lists where
>> people can't handle a MUA
>
> Well then, it's not Benjamin breaking the threading, it's you :P
> You need to r
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:39:05 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 28.09.20 um 16:34 schrieb Dave Howorth:
> > On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 14:10:38 +0200
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> can you stop "reply-all" and breaking threads when respond to
> >> lists?
> >
> > I can't answer for the reply-all, that w
Am 28.09.20 um 18:33 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
> On Mo, 28.09.20 14:22, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote:
>
>> honestly: do you realize that i know very well how the memory management
>> of Linux works and that it's pretty fine but not part of the topic at all?
>
> Reindl, did you
On Mo, 28.09.20 14:22, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote:
> honestly: do you realize that i know very well how the memory management
> of Linux works and that it's pretty fine but not part of the topic at all?
Reindl, did you see who you are replying to here? Maybe don't try to
argue w
Am 28.09.20 um 16:34 schrieb Dave Howorth:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 14:10:38 +0200
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>> can you stop "reply-all" and breaking threads when respond to lists?
>
> I can't answer for the reply-all, that would annoy me as well.
> But the thread isn't broken, my MUA is showing it
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 14:10:38 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> can you stop "reply-all" and breaking threads when respond to lists?
I can't answer for the reply-all, that would annoy me as well.
But the thread isn't broken, my MUA is showing it nicely.
___
s
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 02:22:17PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> honestly: do you realize that i know very well how the memory management
> of Linux works and that it's pretty fine but not part of the topic at all?
*plonk*
___
systemd-devel mailing list
honestly: do you realize that i know very well how the memory management
of Linux works and that it's pretty fine but not part of the topic at all?
Am 28.09.20 um 14:08 schrieb Greg KH:
> How do you know this? And why wouldn't they be "charged" to the task
> that caused the cache to fill up? Wha
can you stop "reply-all" and breaking threads when respond to lists?
Am 28.09.20 um 13:55 schrieb Benjamin Berg:
> On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 11:37 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 28.09.20 um 11:19 schrieb Benjamin Berg:
if i would set "MemoryMax" to 4G "Memory: 8.6G" would kill it
when
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:37:20AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 28.09.20 um 11:19 schrieb Benjamin Berg:
> >> if i would set "MemoryMax" to 4G "Memory: 8.6G" would kill it when the
> >> caches are accounted in that context
> >
> > No, the kernel kicks in and reclaims memory at that point
On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 11:37 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 28.09.20 um 11:19 schrieb Benjamin Berg:
> > > if i would set "MemoryMax" to 4G "Memory: 8.6G" would kill it
> > > when the
> > > caches are accounted in that context
> >
> > No, the kernel kicks in and reclaims memory at that point.
Am 28.09.20 um 11:19 schrieb Benjamin Berg:
>> if i would set "MemoryMax" to 4G "Memory: 8.6G" would kill it when the
>> caches are accounted in that context
>
> No, the kernel kicks in and reclaims memory at that point. Which can
> mean either swapping or just dropping caches.
caches have *not
On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 10:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 28.09.20 um 10:37 schrieb Tomasz Torcz:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:08:15AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > > Am 27.09.20 um 23:39 schrieb Benjamin Berg:
> > > > > > > however, that value makes little to no sense and if that's the
Am 28.09.20 um 10:37 schrieb Tomasz Torcz:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:08:15AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 27.09.20 um 23:39 schrieb Benjamin Berg:
>> however, that value makes little to no sense and if that's the same
>> value as accounted for "MemoryMax" it's plain wrong
>>> But
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:08:15AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 27.09.20 um 23:39 schrieb Benjamin Berg:
> however, that value makes little to no sense and if that's the same
> value as accounted for "MemoryMax" it's plain wrong
> > But it does make sense. File caches are part of the
Am 27.09.20 um 23:39 schrieb Benjamin Berg:
however, that value makes little to no sense and if that's the same
value as accounted for "MemoryMax" it's plain wrong
> But it does make sense. File caches are part of the working set of
> memory that a process needs. Setting MemoryMax=/Mem
On Sun, 2020-09-27 at 17:45 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 27.09.20 um 14:08 schrieb Greg KH:
> > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 01:41:33PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > > Memory: 8.6G
> > >
> > > looks like there is a large part of os-caching included where i wonmder
> > > how that's done because
Am 27.09.20 um 14:08 schrieb Greg KH:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 01:41:33PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Memory: 8.6G
>>
>> looks like there is a large part of os-caching included where i wonmder
>> how that's done because a file can be read by muliple processes /
>> services and is hopfefully o
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 01:41:33PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Memory: 8.6G
>
> looks like there is a large part of os-caching included where i wonmder
> how that's done because a file can be read by muliple processes /
> services and is hopfefully only once cached
>
> however, that value makes
19 matches
Mail list logo
