[ale] adding swap? was "that same darn NFS problem SOLVED"

[Geoffrey]

What you need is a totally separate machine for your LINKER process.

ChangingLINKS.com wrote:
> That is a great idea! My server gets crushed by a program that I call LINKER.
> LINKER makes multi-threaded connections to the Internet and collects data. Of 
> course, while it is collecting the data, some of the web sites that it 
> collects data have connection errors.
> 
> I had two programmers look at the software, and it seems to bottleneck at the 
> nic card. I can open another session and run as many as 2 more instances of 
> the program - but usually the server gets sluggish (insofar as gettting 
> results) at 2 instances.
> 
> While that is going on, I can open 2 more instances on two more servers, and 
> all of them seem to run at full speed - so it doesn't seem to be a data 
> transfer problem.
> 
> This is why I was adding 2 nics to the server. This is also why I think it may 
> be a good idea to double my swap?
> 
> How do I run a test to see whether more swap is needed?
> 
> I have 512RAM, and 1019 swap(I think).
> 
> 
> Drew
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday 17 February 2003 1:38 pm, 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....
>>
>>Right, but the rational I heard is 
>>
>>1.  Having swap doesn't hurt
>>2.  Unless you have so many processes and so much swap space that you get 
>>swap bound
>>3. swap = 2 x RAM is a reasonable heuristic.  If you use much more than 
>>that you are probably swap bound, but up to that amount could really 
>>happen without getting swap bound.
>>
>>Obviously one can create loads that would be usable with more than that 
>>much swap in use.  One could also create loads that are unusable with less 
>>than that much in use.  It is just a rough guess that often works okay, 
>>and few of us have the time or ability to really do an analysis of our 
>>swap needs.
>>
>>Michael
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ale mailing list
>>Ale at ale.org
>>http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at 3times25.net

The latest, most widespread virus?  Microsoft end user agreement.
Think about it...

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