B writes:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:53:50 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
>> Have you actually tested (with hot-pluggable disks) what happens when
>> one of the partitions the system is swapping to suddenly becomes
>> unavailable or difficult to access and what happens when the data (on
>> one of the sw
On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:53:50 +0200
lee wrote:
> Have you actually tested (with hot-pluggable disks) what happens when
> one of the partitions the system is swapping to suddenly becomes
> unavailable or difficult to access and what happens when the data (on
> one of the swap-partitions) becomes co
B writes:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 22:56:48 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
>> Multiplication is an algorithmic operation.
>
> Well, technically speaking, it is additions.
In any case, some algorithm is used :)
--
Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debi
B writes:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 23:09:58 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
>> Does swapping to partitions use
>> checksumming for data integrity?
>
> Not that I know of (but I always make a looong destructive test
> before use, either on regular partitions and swaps).
Have you actually tested (with ho
On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 23:09:58 +0200
lee wrote:
> RAID doesn't provide data integrity even with ECC RAM.
You still have much more chances to avoid writing a bad byte w/ ECC
than with regular RAM, though.
> It only provides redundancy (with some RAID levels). Use ECC RAM and a
> file system that
On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 22:56:48 +0200
lee wrote:
> Multiplication is an algorithmic operation.
Well, technically speaking, it is additions.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: htt
B writes:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:32:08 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
>> Mounting swap partitions with the same priority does not provide
>> redundancy.
>
> As RAID doesn't provide data integrity w/ regular RAM.
RAID doesn't provide data integrity even with ECC RAM.
It only provides redundancy (wi
The Wanderer writes:
> On 09/12/2014 at 12:25 PM, Bret Busby wrote:
>
>> On 12/09/2014, The Wanderer wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/10/2014 at 04:00 AM, Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>> So, whether or not the swap partition is bigger than needed,
>> should not influence the inability of the system, to use the swa
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, lee wrote:
>> "Go down" can have various meanings. When you run a server and a
>> server process (like an MTA or an IMAP or web server) is killed
>> because the system runs out of memory, the server is effectively down.
>
> This is why you use things l
Curt writes:
> On 2014-09-12, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>
>> Possibly because nobody has stepped up to write a new algorithm.
>>
>
> Seems more like simple multiplication than algorithmic calculation to me.
Multiplication is an algorithmic operation.
--
Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Softw
B writes:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:22:01 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
>> Why would you say that?
>
> root denied access to sysctl keys (that doesn't even exist on my
> systems).
I got some denied, too, and some didn't exist.
--
Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power.
--
To UNSUBS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/12/2014 at 12:25 PM, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 12/09/2014, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 09/10/2014 at 04:00 AM, Bret Busby wrote:
>>> I had understood the rule to be that swap space size should be
>>> at least double the size of the RAM.
>>
>
On 2014-09-12, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
> Possibly because nobody has stepped up to write a new algorithm.
>
Seems more like simple multiplication than algorithmic calculation to me.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
On 12/09/2014, The Wanderer wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 09/10/2014 at 04:00 AM, Bret Busby wrote:
>
>> On 10/09/2014, B wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:30:40 +0800 Bret Busby
>>> wrote:
>>>
Alright, then; it is doing token swapping - with 99% o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/10/2014 at 04:00 AM, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 10/09/2014, B wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:30:40 +0800 Bret Busby
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Alright, then; it is doing token swapping - with 99% of 16GB
>>> memory usage, and, swapping only 4%
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 05:07:32PM +, Curt wrote:
> Then why do the (net)installer(s) apply an obsolete principle when you
> accept a/the default partioning scheme(s) (well, at least the Squeeze
> netinstaller I used way back when did so).
Possibly because nobody has stepped up to write a new
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:51:16 +0200
B wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:22:01 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
> > Why would you say that?
>
> root denied access to sysctl keys (that doesn't even exist on my
> systems).
No, sysctl works the way it should:
$ ls -al /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc/register \
/
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, lee wrote:
> "Go down" can have various meanings. When you run a server and a
> server process (like an MTA or an IMAP or web server) is killed
> because the system runs out of memory, the server is effectively down.
This is why you use things like systemd or similar which are
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:22:01 +0200
lee wrote:
> Why would you say that?
root denied access to sysctl keys (that doesn't even exist on my
systems).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Ar
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:32:08 +0200
lee wrote:
> Mounting swap partitions with the same priority does not provide
> redundancy.
As RAID doesn't provide data integrity w/ regular RAM.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Con
B writes:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:21:07 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
>> To prevent an undesirable state of the system due to insufficient
>> memory, you can use (a large amount of) swap space on a slow medium
>> because that may give you a chance to do something before processes are
>> being killed
B writes:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:34:42 +0800
> Bret Busby wrote:
>
>> :~# sysctl -a|grep swap
>> vm.swappiness = 90
>> error: "Invalid argument" reading key "fs.binfmt_misc.register"
>> error: permission denied on key 'net.ipv4.route.flush'
>> error: permission denied on key 'net.ipv6.rout
2014/09/11 0:31 "B" :
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:08:31 -0500
> John Hasler wrote:
>
> > That has been obsolete for at least a decade and may never have
> > applied to Linux. IIRC it had to do with specific characteristics
> > of BSD kernels.
>
> IIRC it was 1.5xRAM.
>
> Today, the only "oblig
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2014, lee wrote:
>> Why would 40GB be too much?
>
> It's probably too much, unless you have processes which allocate lots of
> memory and then use it very infrequently or you have incredibly fast
> disks.
It works fine, only can slow the system down very mu
On 10/09/2014, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:04:46 +0800
> Bret Busby wrote:
>
>> On 10/09/2014, Steve Litt wrote:
>> > On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 21:51:35 +0200
>> > B wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:30:40 +0800
>> >> Bret Busby wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Alright, then; it is doin
On 09/10/2014 02:51 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Wednesday 10 September 2014 19:42:57 Martin Read wrote:
On 10/09/14 18:07, Curt wrote:
Then why do the (net)installer(s) apply an obsolete principle when you
accept a/the default partioning scheme(s) (well, at least the Squeeze
netinstaller I used wa
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:34:42 +0800
Bret Busby wrote:
> :~# sysctl -a|grep swap
> vm.swappiness = 90
> error: "Invalid argument" reading key "fs.binfmt_misc.register"
> error: permission denied on key 'net.ipv4.route.flush'
> error: permission denied on key 'net.ipv6.route.flush'
You're system's
On Wednesday 10 September 2014 19:42:57 Martin Read wrote:
> On 10/09/14 18:07, Curt wrote:
> > Then why do the (net)installer(s) apply an obsolete principle when you
> > accept a/the default partioning scheme(s) (well, at least the Squeeze
> > netinstaller I used way back when did so).
>
> My firs
On 09/10/2014 03:34 AM, Bret Busby wrote:
On 10/09/2014, B wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:30:40 +0800
Bret Busby wrote:
Alright, then; it is doing token swapping - with 99% of 16GB memory
usage, and, swapping only 4% of (about) 40GB swap capacity, you can't
seriously tell me that the swap
On 10/09/14 18:07, Curt wrote:
Then why do the (net)installer(s) apply an obsolete principle when you
accept a/the default partioning scheme(s) (well, at least the Squeeze
netinstaller I used way back when did so).
My first guess would be "because it's not so bad an idea that anyone in
a posit
On 2014-09-10, John Hasler wrote:
>
> That has been obsolete for at least a decade and may never have applied
> to Linux. IIRC it had to do with specific characteristics of BSD
> kernels.
Then why do the (net)installer(s) apply an obsolete principle when you
accept a/the default partioning schem
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:08:31 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
> That has been obsolete for at least a decade and may never have
> applied to Linux. IIRC it had to do with specific characteristics
> of BSD kernels.
IIRC it was 1.5xRAM.
Today, the only "obligation" is to have as swap as ram
if you plan
Steve Litt:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:00:18 +0800
>>
>> I had understood the rule to be that swap space size should be at
>> least double the size of the RAM.
>
> I think that made a lot more sense back in the days when 128MB of RAM
> was standard. If you have 16GB of RAM, and you're not using KDE
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:04:46 +0800
Bret Busby wrote:
> On 10/09/2014, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 21:51:35 +0200
> > B wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:30:40 +0800
> >> Bret Busby wrote:
> >>
> >> > Alright, then; it is doing token swapping - with 99% of 16GB
> >> > memo
Brett writes:
> I had understood the rule to be that swap space size should be at
> least double the size of the RAM.
That has been obsolete for at least a decade and may never have applied
to Linux. IIRC it had to do with specific characteristics of BSD
kernels.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:00:18 +0800
Bret Busby wrote:
> On 10/09/2014, B wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:30:40 +0800
> > Bret Busby wrote:
> >
> >> Alright, then; it is doing token swapping - with 99% of 16GB memory
> >> usage, and, swapping only 4% of (about) 40GB swap capacity, you
> >>
On 10/09/2014, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 02:21:14 +0800
> Bret Busby wrote:
>
>
>> "
>> :~$ vmstat -S M
>> procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io -system--
>> cpu r b swpd free buff cache si sobibo
>> in cs us sy id wa 15 0 1725
On 10/09/2014, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 21:51:35 +0200
> B wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:30:40 +0800
>> Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>> > Alright, then; it is doing token swapping - with 99% of 16GB memory
>> > usage, and, swapping only 4% of (about) 40GB swap capacity, you
>> > c
On 2014-09-09, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> Generally speaking, you want enough swap so that infrequently used
> memory can be offloaded to disk, but not so much swap that your computer
> stops being responsive when you begin to run out of free memory.
>
Is there a basic formula you could share with
On 10/09/2014, B wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:30:40 +0800
> Bret Busby wrote:
>
>> Alright, then; it is doing token swapping - with 99% of 16GB memory
>> usage, and, swapping only 4% of (about) 40GB swap capacity, you can't
>> seriously tell me that the swapping is working as it should be.
On 10/09/2014, B wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:30:40 +0800
> Bret Busby wrote:
>
>> Alright, then; it is doing token swapping - with 99% of 16GB memory
>> usage, and, swapping only 4% of (about) 40GB swap capacity, you can't
>> seriously tell me that the swapping is working as it should be.
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 21:51:35 +0200
B wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:30:40 +0800
> Bret Busby wrote:
>
> > Alright, then; it is doing token swapping - with 99% of 16GB memory
> > usage, and, swapping only 4% of (about) 40GB swap capacity, you
> > can't seriously tell me that the swapping is
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 02:21:14 +0800
Bret Busby wrote:
> "
> :~$ vmstat -S M
> procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io -system--
> cpu r b swpd free buff cache si sobibo
> in cs us sy id wa 15 0 1725 88 85 134801
> 7112
On 09/09/2014 07:00 PM, Bret Busby wrote:
Hello.
It has occurred to me, with the problem with the xsession-errors file
progressively consuming HDD space until it runs out, causing crashing,
and the deflating of the file, using the '>' action, to ask whether a
similar way exists, of freeing RAM t
On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:21:07 +0200
lee wrote:
> To prevent an undesirable state of the system due to insufficient
> memory, you can use (a large amount of) swap space on a slow medium
> because that may give you a chance to do something before processes are
> being killed.
Re-read what Don has e
On Tue, 09 Sep 2014, lee wrote:
> Why would 40GB be too much?
It's probably too much, unless you have processes which allocate lots of
memory and then use it very infrequently or you have incredibly fast
disks.
> I have 8/64 so I can use swapping to slow down the downfall of the
> system.
The sy
B writes:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:30:40 +0800
> Bret Busby wrote:
>
>> Alright, then; it is doing token swapping - with 99% of 16GB memory
>> usage, and, swapping only 4% of (about) 40GB swap capacity, you can't
>> seriously tell me that the swapping is working as it should be.
>
> Anyway,
Bret Busby writes:
> On 10/09/2014, Martin Read wrote:
>> On 09/09/14 19:42, B wrote:
>>> Normally, if you _really_ reach the system RAM limit, init begins
>>> killing the least used programs/daemons (well, this WAS true with
>>> a good init, such as the sysV one…)
>>
>> First, the OOM Kille
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:30:40 +0800
Bret Busby wrote:
> Alright, then; it is doing token swapping - with 99% of 16GB memory
> usage, and, swapping only 4% of (about) 40GB swap capacity, you can't
> seriously tell me that the swapping is working as it should be.
Anyway, a swap of 40GB is too much
On 10/09/2014, B wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 02:57:26 +0800
> Bret Busby wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but, whatever I tried, I could never get Debian 6 to swap. It
>> would just run out of RAM and freeze.
>
> But you ARE swapping (from your 2nd post):
> Swap: 428603401764372 41095968
>
> if y
On 2014-09-09 20:13 +0200, Bret Busby wrote:
> :~$ free
> total used free sharedbuffers cached
> Mem: 16333856 16242704 91152 0 867841384384
> -/+ buffers/cache: 147715361562320
> Swap: 428603401764372 41095968
Tha
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 02:57:26 +0800
Bret Busby wrote:
> Yeah, but, whatever I tried, I could never get Debian 6 to swap. It
> would just run out of RAM and freeze.
But you ARE swapping (from your 2nd post):
Swap: 428603401764372 41095968
if you weren't, the 2nd col. would be 0 and col1
On 10/09/2014, Martin Read wrote:
> On 09/09/14 19:42, B wrote:
>> Normally, if you _really_ reach the system RAM limit, init begins
>> killing the least used programs/daemons (well, this WAS true with
>> a good init, such as the sysV one…)
>
> First, the OOM Killer is part of the kernel, not
On 09/09/14 19:42, B wrote:
Normally, if you _really_ reach the system RAM limit, init begins
killing the least used programs/daemons (well, this WAS true with
a good init, such as the sysV one…)
First, the OOM Killer is part of the kernel, not part of the init
system. Second, it doesn't s
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:59:29 +0800
Bret Busby wrote:
> could run a command, and, RAM that is not currently in use by programs
> that are running, is freed?
No, as the 'unused' RAM is in fact used for system caches.
But you can change the swapping threshold:
http://linux.cloudibee.com/2007/11/li
On 10/09/2014, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:59:29 +0800
> Bret Busby wrote:
>
>
>> At present, with 16GB of RAM, on this computer, and, "91% in use by
>> programs" and "8% in use as cache" (even though, I set cache off, in
>> each of the web browsers), it is a system riddled with bl
On 10/09/2014, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Bret Busby wrote:
>> At present, with 16GB of RAM, on this computer, and, "91% in use by
>> programs" and "8% in use as cache" (even though, I set cache off, in
>> each of the web browsers),
>
> Cache has nothing to do with the browsers, a
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:59:29 +0800
Bret Busby wrote:
> At present, with 16GB of RAM, on this computer, and, "91% in use by
> programs" and "8% in use as cache" (even though, I set cache off, in
> each of the web browsers), it is a system riddled with bloatware, and,
> like a cow with bloat, whe
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Bret Busby wrote:
> At present, with 16GB of RAM, on this computer, and, "91% in use by
> programs" and "8% in use as cache" (even though, I set cache off, in
> each of the web browsers),
Cache has nothing to do with the browsers, and everything to do with the
kernel.
The out
Hello.
It has occurred to me, with the problem with the xsession-errors file
progressively consuming HDD space until it runs out, causing crashing,
and the deflating of the file, using the '>' action, to ask whether a
similar way exists, of freeing RAM that has been hijacked - RAM that
is also pro
60 matches
Mail list logo
