![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Tue, 11 Apr 2006 @ 01:33 -0700, Linda Walsh said: > 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. It's great if you actually need the file data that gets stored. > Maybe you are telling the system to "feel free" to use swap by having a > large swap file? I don't believe that matters, and certainly doesn't seem to affect my own system. If I use a smaller swap file, I just run out faster. Is your experience different? > 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! Sure it will run, but I *want* swap to be used to remove unused programs. My current problem is that *useful* program code is being swapped out and being replaced by *useless* cached file data. > 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). I've not seen ionice. -- shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers turn to look at the stars" -- Rush ] - 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: 2006-05-02 06:25 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||