On 8/6/25 17:14, Frits Hoogland wrote:
As I said, do not disable swap. You don't need a huge amount, but
maybe 16 GB or so would do it.
Joe, please, can you state a technical reason for saying this?
All you are saying is ‘don’t do this’.
I’ve stated my reasons for why this doesn’t make sense,
> As I said, do not disable swap. You don't need a huge amount, but maybe 16 GB
> or so would do it.
Joe, please, can you state a technical reason for saying this?
All you are saying is ‘don’t do this’.
I’ve stated my reasons for why this doesn’t make sense, and you don’t give any
reason.
The
(Both: please trim and reply inline on these lists as I have done;
Frits, please reply all not just to the list -- I never received your
reply to me)
On 8/6/25 11:51, Priya V wrote:
*cat /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_ratio*
50
$ *cat /proc/sys/vm/swappiness*
60
*Workload*: Multi-tenant PostgreSQL
Hi Frits, Joe,
Thank you both for you insights
*Current situation:*
*cat /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory*
0
*cat /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_ratio*
50
$ *cat /proc/sys/vm/swappiness*
60
*Workload*: Multi-tenant PostgreSQL
*uname -r*
4.18.0-477.83.1.el8_8.x86_64
*free -h*
total used free shared b
Joe,
Can you name any technical reason why not having swap for a database is an
actual bad idea?
Memory always is limited. Swap was invented to overcome a situation where the
(incidental) memory usage of paged in memory was could (regularly) get higher
than physical memory would allow, and th
