[ale] that same darn NFS problem SOLVED

[matty91 at bellsouth.net]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Calvin Harrigan wrote:

> At 02:38 PM 2/17/2003 -0500, Michael D. Hirsch wrote:
> >On Monday 17 February 2003 02:30 pm, Chris Ricker wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> > > > With a 2.4.x kernel and RAM <=4G swap=2xRAM
> > >
> > > That's not necessary. There was a bug in early 2.4.x that required
> > > swap=2xRAM for decent performance, but that's long since been fixed...
> > >
> > > You need enough swap to hold your working set. That could be anything
> > > from no swap to gigabytes, depending on what you do on that system....
>
> <snip>
>
> The 2xRam argument is understandable, but questionable/confusing (at least
> in my opinion).  I have 128Megs Ram, a 256MB swap, fine.  I'm swapping too
> much, I add another 256Megs of Ram, according to the argument I should now
> increase my swap to 768MB (384MB ram total).  Why?
> Isn't the whole point of adding more memory to get away from swapping?
> Just a question I've asked several times without a good answer.


I have not studied the Linux Virtualmemoery architecture, but if it is
anythign like the SYSV model, swap and RAM are treated as equals. You
have one HUGE address space, be it disk or RAM. The slab and memory
allocation algorithms are smart enough to use RAM when it is available.

>
>
> Calvin...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale