From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 04:14:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 04:14:01 -0400 Received: from www.wen-online.de ([212.223.88.39]:62472 "EHLO wen-online.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 04:13:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:13:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Mike Galbraith X-X-Sender: To: Steve Kieu cc: kernel Subject: Re: 2.4 VM & swap question In-Reply-To: <20010619073627.14718.qmail@web10407.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Steve Kieu wrote: > Just an information for you to compare, now I am > running the kernel compile from mandrake 80; version > 2.4.3-20mdk on a > machine Intel celeron 400Mhz 128M RAM, i810 graphic > card (it will use some memory) ; runing together > Star Office 5.2, Netscape 4.77, Mozilla (shiped with > LM80), compiling alsa driver and you may guess how > much swap it used? > > [sk@steve sk]$ free > total used free shared > buffers cached > Mem: 126108 124416 1692 0 > 604 51820 > -/+ buffers/cache: 71992 54116 > Swap: 72288 0 72288 Just a general note about swap preallocation: I've done truckloads of experimentation over the last year or so, and it is generally true that kernels which have an active swapcache prior to need perform much better than those which don't at crunch time. It's also generally true that kernels which actually page very lightly before crunchtime react sooner/better to crunch. I hate to see swap totally untouched because I then know full well that I have a bunch of totally inactive but plugged up ram pages. (If you have too much ram, that doesn't matter :) -Mike