On Tue 30 Jun 2020 at 22:04:02 (-0700), Bob McGowan wrote:
> On 6/29/2020 11:37 PM, Reco wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:10:44PM -0700, Bob McGowan wrote:
> > > But I cannot figure out where this might be, or even if this is the
> > > correct interpretation.
> > Check out the contents of /et
On 6/29/2020 11:37 PM, Reco wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:10:44PM -0700, Bob McGowan wrote:
But I cannot figure out where this might be, or even if this is the correct
interpretation.
Check out the contents of /etc/systemd/system first.
Rebuild initramfs second.
Reco
Hi,
I
Bob McGowan wrote:
> Please see thread with subject "Be careful when editing /etc/fstab" for
> a bit of background.
>
> My computer had two swap partitions, on two different disks, when one of
> them started to generate CRC errors, seek errors, etc.
>
> Once I determined which of the two it was,
Hi.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:10:44PM -0700, Bob McGowan wrote:
> But I cannot figure out where this might be, or even if this is the correct
> interpretation.
Check out the contents of /etc/systemd/system first.
Rebuild initramfs second.
Reco
Please see thread with subject "Be careful when editing /etc/fstab" for
a bit of background.
My computer had two swap partitions, on two different disks, when one of
them started to generate CRC errors, seek errors, etc.
Once I determined which of the two it was, I commented out the
/etc/fst
Le 14/02/2019 à 03:14, Curt Howland a écrit :
I also put in ramdisk options for /tmp in /etc/fstab
You mean tmpfs, not ramdisk. Nobody sane would prefer ramdisk over tmpfs
for /tmp.
On 2/13/19 1:28 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:14:36PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
A swap partition is faster than a swap file.
Has something changed in this regard since kernel version 2.6 then?
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0507.0/1690.html
I do not follo
On 2/13/19 1:23 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:
David Christensen wrote:
On 2/13/19 6:11 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
If you want maximum SSD longevity, increase the amount of space that
the SSD can use for remapping by never writing to some amount of
space. Easiest is to not fill the disk with partitions -- le
are also a bunch of networking defaults for IPv4 and v6 for
security and simplicity, but this is about SSD wear and swap space. A
swap partition that is simply never written to never wears out.
I also put in ramdisk options for /tmp in /etc/fstab in order to
reduce disk writes.
Curt-
- --
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 04:23:56PM -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
> "Over-provisioning often takes away from user capacity, either
> temporarily or permanently, but it gives back reduced write
> amplification, increased endurance, and increased performance."
>
> Increased endurance is increased
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:14:36PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
AFAIK over-provisioning has no effect on longevity -- longevity is
proportional to total number of cells times rated erase/ write cycles
per cell divided by write throughput.
In the absence of trim, restricting the logical capac
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:14:36PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> A swap partition is faster than a swap file.
Has something changed in this regard since kernel version 2.6 then?
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0507.0/1690.html
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-no
David Christensen wrote:
> On 2/13/19 6:11 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > If you want maximum SSD longevity, increase the amount of space that
> > the SSD can use for remapping by never writing to some amount of
> > space. Easiest is to not fill the disk with partitions -- leave 5-10%
> > empty.
>
> A
On 2/13/19 5:41 AM, deb wrote:
Again -- fussing with a full (not from a live .iso) 9.7 install; the
Debian GUI installer is suggesting a Swap partition on a Kingston
SSD.
#1 Given that it's not great to pound the same area of a SSD with
writes; is it indeed still best practice to go with a swap
Thank you.
On 2/13/2019 9:11 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
deb wrote:
On 2/13/2019 8:46 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:41:33AM -0500, deb wrote:
#1 Given that it's not great to pound the same area of a SSD with
writes; is it indeed still best practice to go with a swap partition
deb wrote:
>
> On 2/13/2019 8:46 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:41:33AM -0500, deb wrote:
> > > #1 Given that it's not great to pound the same area of a SSD with
> > > writes; is it indeed still best practice to go with a swap partition
> > > on a SSD rather than a swap F
On 2/13/2019 8:46 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:41:33AM -0500, deb wrote:
#1 Given that it's not great to pound the same area of a SSD with
writes; is it indeed still best practice to go with a swap partition
on a SSD rather than a swap FILE?
That's not a thing: the SS
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:41:33AM -0500, deb wrote:
#1 Given that it's not great to pound the same area of a SSD with
writes; is it indeed still best practice to go with a swap partition
on a SSD rather than a swap FILE?
That's not a thing: the SSD will balance writes physically across the
d
Hello folks:
Again -- fussing with a full (not from a live .iso) 9.7 install; the
Debian GUI installer is suggesting a Swap partition on a Kingston SSD.
#1 Given that it's not great to pound the same area of a SSD with
writes; is it indeed still best practice to go with a swap partition on
On Friday 04 May 2012 06:16:52 Bret Busby wrote:
> It could simply be malicious web sites.
>
> I have just tried (repeatedly) to access whitepages.com.au, using
> konqueror (one of the web browsers that I have kept allowing
> Javascript), and, each time that I try to use the web site, it just
> fre
onsume a RAM's worth right out of the
>> starting gate. The rest is then available for regular swap
>> file activity.
>
> This is - more or less - wrong. Suspend/Resume will consume at most
> swap space corresponding to the used RAM (i. e. with compression and
> dro
On 04/05/12 16:34, Bret Busby wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>
>>
>> On 04/05/12 15:16, Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>> Works just as well in iceweasel 12.0.1 with NoScript fully enabled.
>> Ditto Konqueror 4.4.5
>>
>
> Hmm.
>
> It does work in iceweasel 3.5.16, with Javascript di
On Fri, 4 May 2012, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 04/05/12 15:16, Bret Busby wrote:
I have just tried (repeatedly) to access whitepages.com.au, using
konqueror (one of the web browsers that I have kept allowing
Javascript), and, each time that I try to use the web site, it just
freezes konquero
On 04/05/12 15:30, Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>
> And, Iceweasel (and it may have happened with the iceape browser; I am
> not sure - have not used it for a couple of weeks, now, I think) has a
> habit of leaving fragments of dialogue boxes on top of everything else
> on the desktop, hiding parts of
On 04/05/12 15:16, Bret Busby wrote:
>
> I have just tried (repeatedly) to access whitepages.com.au, using
> konqueror (one of the web browsers that I have kept allowing
> Javascript), and, each time that I try to use the web site, it just
> freezes konqueror, requiring me to use the kill switc
On Fri, 4 May 2012, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 04/05/12 14:23, Bret Busby wrote:
Perhaps, on installation, the creation of a file to store the original
information about the installation (iso image source, full version
number and date of version, etc), that could be retrieved any time
On Fri, 4 May 2012, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 04/05/12 04:54, Bret Busby wrote:
Out of interest, with you saying that swapping is not mandatory,
from memory, about 20-odd years ago, when I started learning
(formally) about operating systems, we were told that UNIX has a
memory requirement
On Fri, 4 May 2012, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Hm, I've got 4 GB RAM and two swaps, 2.17GiB and 2.43GiB, one on each
HDD I'm using.
I'm doing resource-intensive work with my machine.
4 GB RAM are enough for my needs and I never noticed that a swap was
touched.
For my kind of usage Linux (Debian and se
On 04/05/12 14:23, Bret Busby wrote:
> If some utility
> existed that would display the source of an iso image, and the full
> version number of the source iso image, it would be good.
# mount -o loop debian-testing-i386-netinst.iso /mnt
# cat /mnt/.disk/info
Debian GNU/Linux testing "Wheezy" -
On 04/05/12 02:28, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 01:36 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
While this computer has 8GB of RAM, which is far greater than the total
hard drive capacities of most hard drives from twenty years ago
I can't resist ... in the 80s and 90s we burned EPROMS with much
Rick Thomas wrote:
> Another use for a large swap partition is if you want to put /tmp
> into tmpfs.
Yes. The new trend for tmpfs /tmp partitions is going to require a
lot of thinking and rethinking for how much swap is required.
Or also swap is useful if you have an enterprise server and have
d
separated, large partitions.
I chose the swap partition size.
I reasoned that I have (what I regard as) a massively large hard drive
capacity, so I might as well use it to help system stability, by
providing a large amount of swap space.
Is your Debian a regular Debian? IOW did you download the
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 01:36 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > While this computer has 8GB of RAM, which is far greater than the total
> > hard drive capacities of most hard drives from twenty years ago
I can't resist ... in the 80s and 90s we burned EPROMS with much less
capacity than an USB stick h
UNIX is a tag that comes
at a cost. Like Heart Foundation endorsement.
> it is classed, I believe, as "UNIX-like", and som I believe, uses or
> imitates, some of the principles of UNIX.
Yes. Call it a clean room implementation (blindly cloned) that achieves
a high POSIX.
>
>
han RAM. (I haven't tested with less than that amount).
>
> If the swap space is available during normal usage, then it's entirely
> possible to have no space to suspend to.
??
I've *never* found either of the Linux suspend schemes (usermode or
kernel) suffer from that fa
> While this computer has 8GB of RAM, which is far greater than the total
> hard drive capacities of most hard drives from twenty years ago
40MB (mega bytes!) SCSI drive for my Atari 520 ST here and 4MB RAM (I'm
a tinkerer ;) and it's not only running the Atari TOS, there's a 80286
hardware emul
Hm, I've got 4 GB RAM and two swaps, 2.17GiB and 2.43GiB, one on each
HDD I'm using.
I'm doing resource-intensive work with my machine.
4 GB RAM are enough for my needs and I never noticed that a swap was
touched.
For my kind of usage Linux (Debian and several other distros) are able
to handle the
sabled, and you have plenty of swap space for any
normal use.
The remaining question is, why do you periodically run out of memory
and crash? Or, put another way, what abnormal use is occurring to cause
your crashes?
Are there any indications in syslog of what may be going on immediate
tes, some of the
principles of UNIX.
In that, I believe that Linux requires memory paging, that we rname
swapping, and, I understand that the rule used to be to provide swap
space of at least twice the amount of RAM.
While this computer has 8GB of RAM, which is far greater than the tota
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 17:27:42
From: Andrei POPESCU
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Swap space not used
On Mi, 02 mai 12, 15:48:30, Bret Busby wrote:
Hello.
I am running Debian 6.
When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about
Hello Darac,
Darac Marjal wrote:
> If the swap space is available during normal usage, then it's entirely
> possible to have no space to suspend to.
Yes. However, this is rather unlikely when the computer is used as a
desktop/laptop, don’t you think? The only times when I actually u
gt; Suspend/resume will consume a RAM's worth right out of the
> > starting gate. The rest is then available for regular swap
> > file activity.
>
> This is - more or less - wrong. Suspend/Resume will consume at most
> swap space corresponding to the used RAM (i. e. with
s then available for regular swap
> file activity.
This is - more or less - wrong. Suspend/Resume will consume at most
swap space corresponding to the used RAM (i. e. with compression and
dropping of buffers/caches, it can be far less). However, this swap
space is not used during runtime but
On Wed, 02 May 2012 07:12:31 -0400 (EDT), Sian Mountbatten wrote:
> ...
> As a rule, your swap partition should be the same size as your RAM.
> ...
It is my understanding that,
assuming suspend/resume is supported, your swap partition
should be AT LEAST as large as TWICE the amount of RAM.
Suspend
On 02/05/12 17:48, Bret Busby wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I am running Debian 6.
>
> When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about 40GB set up, as is
> shown by gparted.
>
> But, for some strnge reason, Debian 6will not use the swap space,
> even
> though gpart
Another use for a large swap partition is if you want to put /tmp into
tmpfs.
Whether doing so is a "good thing(TM)" is a religious debate that I
don't want to stir up here. But there are people who do it, and for
them a large swap partition can be useful.
Rick
PS: We haven't heard back
o within the memory I have available.
>
> It is not uncommon for me to misjudge the need by a factor of 2 or 3, and
> in those cases, I have programs being killed left and right unless I have
> enough swap-space.
>
> I would say that being careful with swap-space is important
e programs being killed left and right unless I
have enough swap-space.
I would say that being careful with swap-space is important when one has
too small a hard drive, but I have plenty of drives space these days.
Not having my jobs killed is more important to me than saving a few tens
of GB of e
B!! And, of course, that was in the days when RAM was
> tiny by today's standards.
That indeed was a rule of thumb when swap space was actually
important. However, with today’s RAM, the main usage of swap space is
hibernate (suspend to disk), for which at most the size of your RAM
in
On Wednesday 02 May 2012 12:12:31 Sian Mountbatten wrote:
> As a rule, your swap
> partition should be the same size as your RAM.
We used to be taught it should be twice as big as your RAM - but even that
wouldn't get you to 40GB!! And, of course, that was in the days when RAM was
tiny by today
On 02/05/12 09:00, Bret Busby wrote:
Hello.
I am running Debian 6.
When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about 40GB set up, as is
shown by gparted.
But, for some strnge reason, Debian 6will not use the swap space, even
though gparted shows it to be "Active".
Instead o
On Mi, 02 mai 12, 15:48:30, Bret Busby wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I am running Debian 6.
>
> When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about 40GB set up, as
> is shown by gparted.
four zero Gigabytes? My / + /home are only 27GB :)
> But, for some strnge reason, Debian 6
On Wed, 2 May 2012 15:48:30 +0800 (WST)
Bret Busby wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I am running Debian 6.
>
> When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about 40GB set up, as is
> shown by gparted.
>
> But, for some strnge reason, Debian 6will not use the swap space, even
&
Hi,
In article ,
Bret Busby wrote:
> When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about 40GB set up, as is
> shown by gparted.
>
> But, for some strnge reason, Debian 6will not use the swap space, even
> though gparted shows it to be "Active".
>
> Ins
Hello.
I am running Debian 6.
When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about 40GB set up, as is
shown by gparted.
But, for some strnge reason, Debian 6will not use the swap space, even
though gparted shows it to be "Active".
Instead of Debian 6 using the swap[ partitio
On Sun 14 Aug 2011 at 15:37:34 +0100, AG wrote:
> My hard ram is 3 GB (2.84 to be exact) and I gave the same amount to
> swap when I initially partitioned the HDD.
More than enough.
> My response to Ivan crossed yours, so if there's no value and I also run
> the risk of meddling with the ker
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 6:51 AM, AG wrote:
> Hey list
>
> Just a quick query about releasing swap space. On occasion according to
> Conky (system monitoring app), the swap space (set at 3Gb) sometimes gets
> used to up to 15% especially if using something like Pan for usenet.
&
> Camaleón writes:
[…]
> So, who is going to say that a "/swap" partition is going to be
> needed with 8 GiB of RAM? I wouldn't, I just thought kernel makes
> use of all of the available resources are allocates them to get the
> best performance. Meaning: if you have available resourc
> AG writes:
> On 14/08/11 14:35, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> AG writes:
[…]
> I have recently switched to Xfce4 on Stable from Gnome because the
> latter was quite a memory hog and seemed to retain pages in swap
> until I logged/ rebooted.
The pages that stay longer in the
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:37:34 +0100, AG wrote:
> On 14/08/11 15:27, Camaleón wrote:
>> What's your amount of physical ram?
>>
>>
> My hard ram is 3 GB (2.84 to be exact) and I gave the same amount to
> swap when I initially partitioned the HDD.
That's a fair amount of ram... I wonder why your sy
On 14/08/11 15:27, Camaleón wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:51:07 +0100, AG wrote:
Just a quick query about releasing swap space. On occasion according to
Conky (system monitoring app), the swap space (set at 3Gb) sometimes
gets used to up to 15% especially if using something like Pan for
On 14/08/11 14:35, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
AG writes:
> Just a quick query about releasing swap space. On occasion according to
> Conky (system monitoring app), the swap space (set at 3Gb) sometimes
> gets used to up to 15% especially if using something like Pan for
> usen
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:51:07 +0100, AG wrote:
> Just a quick query about releasing swap space. On occasion according to
> Conky (system monitoring app), the swap space (set at 3Gb) sometimes
> gets used to up to 15% especially if using something like Pan for
> usenet.
What'
>>>>> AG writes:
> Just a quick query about releasing swap space. On occasion according to
> Conky (system monitoring app), the swap space (set at 3Gb) sometimes
> gets used to up to 15% especially if using something like Pan for
> usenet.
> Is there any
Hey list
Just a quick query about releasing swap space. On occasion according to
Conky (system monitoring app), the swap space (set at 3Gb) sometimes
gets used to up to 15% especially if using something like Pan for usenet.
Is there any value/ harm in releasing this space using something
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009, Aneurin Price wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 02/03/2009 05:01 AM, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> >
> > That's a design issue (I think) specific to Windows. Has to do with the
> > decision to map video card RAM into regular address space (even on
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/03/2009 05:01 AM, Avi Greenbury wrote:
>>
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> > On 02/01/2009 10:04 AM, Mirko Scurk wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >>
>> >> Could it be that 32-bit Debian can't access rest of memory?
>> >>
>> >
>> > That would only be
On 02/03/2009 05:01 AM, Avi Greenbury wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/01/2009 10:04 AM, Mirko Scurk wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Could it be that 32-bit Debian can't access rest of memory?
>>
>
> That would only be an issue if he could only see (I think) 2GB of his
> 4GB RAM.
>
Really?
The o
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/01/2009 10:04 AM, Mirko Scurk wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Could it be that 32-bit Debian can't access rest of memory?
>>
>
> That would only be an issue if he could only see (I think) 2GB of his
> 4GB RAM.
>
Really?
The only system on which I've >3Gb of ram and a 32bit OS is
On 02/02/2009 11:34 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:04:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 01/30/2009 09:54 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 02:52:34AM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
If a 100%
>> Try to run `free' to get a more detailed break up (or even "cat
>> /proc/meminfo").
> Running free -g on my system returns 3. I have 4.
> Running cat /proc/meminfo returns 4030668KB, which is 3.84GB according
> to onlineconversion, closer. Does RAM also have a sort of FAT?
No, it's just that s
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:04:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/30/2009 09:54 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 02:52:34AM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> >>On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
> >>If a 100% CPU usage causes your computer to *over*h
On 02/01/2009 08:15 PM, Lee Glidewell wrote:
[snip]
You know what they say about people who assume. ;)
I'll go stand in the corner now.
With your nose pressed into the corner, touching that dust spot at
eye level.
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
"I am not surprised, for we live lon
On Sunday 01 February 2009 17:59:07 Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/01/2009 02:49 PM, Lee Glidewell wrote:
> >
> > No, the issue is that manufactures advertise in *1000, while computers
> > use
>
> Hard drive manufacturers, not RAM manufacturers.
>
> My beard's grey enough to remember when drive manufac
On 02/01/2009 02:49 PM, Lee Glidewell wrote:
On Saturday 31 January 2009 21:01:14 David Fox wrote:
It isn't that RAM has a FAT - those things only are present on
filesystems. It is more likely that free's interpretation doesn't
include kernel memory. Also, 4gb may be 4*1024*1024 not 4*1000*1000,
On Sunday 01 February 2009 17:04:38 Nuno Magalhães wrote:
> > So a stick of memory advertised as 4 Gigabytes is going to present itself
> > to your computer as 3.84 Gibibytes, roughly.
>
> Er... what's the standard in Debian? 1024, right? We're still being
> logical here, right?
Sorry, it's more l
> So a stick of memory advertised as 4 Gigabytes is going to present itself to
> your computer as 3.84 Gibibytes, roughly.
Er... what's the standard in Debian? 1024, right? We're still being
logical here, right?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Saturday 31 January 2009 21:01:14 David Fox wrote:
>
> It isn't that RAM has a FAT - those things only are present on
> filesystems. It is more likely that free's interpretation doesn't
> include kernel memory. Also, 4gb may be 4*1024*1024 not 4*1000*1000,
> although that is more likely to be a
On 02/01/2009 10:04 AM, Mirko Scurk wrote:
[snip]
Could it be that 32-bit Debian can't access rest of memory?
That would only be an issue if he could only see (I think) 2GB of
his 4GB RAM.
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
"I am not surprised, for we live long and are celebrated poope
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/31/2009 03:27 PM, Nuno MagalhĂŁes wrote:
>>> Try to run `free' to get a more detailed break up (or even "cat
>>> /proc/meminfo").
>>
>> Running free -g on my system returns 3. I have 4.
>> Running cat /proc/meminfo returns 4030668KB, which is 3.84GB according
>
> That's
On 01/31/2009 11:01 PM, David Fox wrote:
[snip]
It isn't that RAM has a FAT - those things only are present on
filesystems. It is more likely that free's interpretation doesn't
include kernel memory. Also, 4gb may be 4*1024*1024 not 4*1000*1000,
although that is more likely to be a concern with
On 01/31/2009 03:27 PM, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
Try to run `free' to get a more detailed break up (or even "cat
/proc/meminfo").
Running free -g on my system returns 3. I have 4.
Running cat /proc/meminfo returns 4030668KB, which is 3.84GB according
That's 4030668*1024 = 4,127,404,032.
to onl
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
> It seems as though free won't return the accurate size.
I also have 4 gb of RAM (new Quadcore Intel) and 'free -g' reports '3'
as well, I suspect this is underrounding to the extreme, and 'free
-gb' returns a more realistic number:
f...@n
On 2009-01-31 02:52:34 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
> > I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of
> > my CPU is high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also
> > discovered that my swa
On 01/31/2009 06:00 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:04:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 01/30/2009 09:54 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 02:52:34AM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
Hi
I r
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:04:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/30/2009 09:54 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 02:52:34AM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
Hi
I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% w
> Try to run `free' to get a more detailed break up (or even "cat
> /proc/meminfo").
Running free -g on my system returns 3. I have 4.
Running cat /proc/meminfo returns 4030668KB, which is 3.84GB according
to onlineconversion, closer. Does RAM also have a sort of FAT?
It seems as though free won'
> I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU is
> high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also discovered that my swap
> space is being used while only 13% of the RAM is, why isn't is using the
> rest of the RAM. Has anyone got any ideas why?
Dean Chester:
>
> I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU is
> high.
The causality is the other way round: your CPU's temperature rises if
the CPU is being used. That's totally expected. The question is whether
the temperature is high enough to damage your CPU.
J.
have also discovered that my swap
space is being used while only 13% of the RAM is, why isn't is using the
rest of the RAM. Has anyone got any ideas why?
No. CPU utilization has nothing directly to do with swap usage.
If a 100% CPU usage causes your computer to *over*heat (which is
something yo
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 02:52:34AM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
> > Hi
> > I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU is
> > high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also di
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
> Hi
> I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU is
> high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also discovered that my swap
> space is being used while only 13% of the RAM is, why isn&#x
On Friday 2009 January 30 18:54:34 Dean Chester wrote:
>I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU is
>high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also discovered that my swap
>space is being used while only 13% of the RAM is, why isn't is using the
&g
On 01/30/2009 06:54 PM, Dean Chester wrote:
Hi
I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU
is high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also discovered that my
swap space is being used
How much? 2%, or 90%?
while only 13% of the RAM
Hi
I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU is
high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also discovered that my swap
space is being used while only 13% of the RAM is, why isn't is using the
rest of the RAM. Has anyone got any ideas why?
Thanks in Advance
Dean.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 06:51:08AM -0400, Mag Gam wrote:
> Typically, we create a partition to capture a kernel dump when the system
> crashes. Therefore, a system with 16GB of RAM will have a partition with
> 16GB.
>
> How would I scale a system with 64 or 128GB of memory? Any thoughts?
>
Bigge
"Mag Gam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Typically, we create a partition to capture a kernel dump when the system
> crashes. Therefore, a system with 16GB of RAM will have a partition with
> 16GB.
> How would I scale a system with 64 or 128GB of memory? Any thoughts?
As far as I understand, thou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/11/08 05:51, Mag Gam wrote:
> Typically, we create a partition to capture a kernel dump when the
> system crashes.
How often does that happen?
> Therefore, a system with 16GB of RAM will have a
> partition with 16GB.
>
> How wo
Typically, we create a partition to capture a kernel dump when the system
crashes. Therefore, a system with 16GB of RAM will have a partition with
16GB.
How would I scale a system with 64 or 128GB of memory? Any thoughts?
TIA
Hi,
I've got a couple of questions regarding hd partitions and swap space.
My first, immediate problem is that I've just upgraded my RAM from 1.5GB
to 3GB. I'm running some numerical simulations and analysis that require
that much space or more. My swap partition is 1.95GB, and
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
