![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> Mon, 27 Mar 2006 @ 19:59 -0800, Andrew Morton said:
>
>
>> Much porkiness.
>>
>> /proc/meminfo is very useful for obtaining a top-level view of where all
>> the memory's gone to. I'd tentatively say that your options are to put up
>> with the swapping or find a new mail client.
>>
>
> I use mutt for my email, and I have the same issue on a 1GB system.
>
> I really wish we could put an upper limit on what file cache can use.
>
----
Hmmm, not to be contrary, but I have a 1GB system that refuses to swap
during large file i/o operations. For the first time in a *long* time,
I read someone's suggestion to increase swappiness -- I did, to 75 or 80,
(I've booted since then, so it's back to 60 and no swap usage) and some of
the programs that rarely run actually swapped. It was great! I finally had
more memory for file i/o operations.
Maybe you are telling the system to "feel free" to use swap by having a
large swap file? I have a 256Mb swap partition near the front of the disk
where I/O is fastest, but it usually remains untouched, but that also means
I can only overcommit used memory by 25% (1Gphys, 256M swap). I don't know
what the OOM "looks like" when it runs. I had a buggy perlapp, once, that
tried to consume infinite memory, but I think it segfaulted before the OOM
could act.
Maybe if you don't want linux to swap as much, it might swap less if
you give
it less to swap with? I know it sounds simplistic, but I've run with
smallish
swap files ever since I got up to 1GB of main memory. The only reason I
have one
at all is I presumed that infrequently used functions, like dhcp (only
used when
friends are over) would be shuffled out -- but it isn't unless I increase
swappiness.
> I shouldn't be suffering from swap storms.
>
I agree. Try getting rid of your swap file entirely -- your system will
still
run unless you are overloading memory, but you have a Gig. How much do you
need to keep in memory? Sure, if/when I get a 4-way CPU (I have a 2-cpu
setup now),
I might go up to 4G, but I might be running multiple virtual machines too!
> For example, my normal working set of programs eats about 250MB of memory. If
> I also start a job running to something like tag some mp3s, copy a CD, or just
> process a lot of files, it only takes a few minutes before performance becomes
> unacceptable.
>
---
You might try the "cfq" block i/o algorithm. Then you can
ionice down the disk priority of background processes (though you need
to be root to reduce ionice levels at this point, unlike cpu nice).
> If you are doing some work where you switch among several applications
> frequently, the pigginess of file cache becomes a serious problem.
---
Never a problem. I don't allocate enough swap for it to be a
problem I'm
guessing. Programs stay in memory and blocks get forced out to disk more
frequently.
Linda
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-04-11 08:35 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||