| 1 |
My previous server OS choice was Red Hat, which did often change to swap. I
|
| 2 |
though Gentoo did it too.
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Thanks,
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Tom
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
On Fri Jul 30 13:22 , 'Florian Koenig' <k0255220@××××××××××××××××××××.at> sent:
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
>> > Also, when I do |
| 11 |
>> > |
| 12 |
>> > free |
| 13 |
>> > |
| 14 |
>> > it shows no swap is used even though physical memory level is 98%. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> free shows no swap used on my system either. and 90% or more physical |
| 17 |
>> memory use is standard for the linux kernel. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>Exactly. In contrast to Windows NT/2000/XP, which tries to swap out as much |
| 20 |
pages as possible, Linux tries to keep the memory mostly filled. Lots of the
|
| 21 |
memory gets used as cache and buffer so you might actually gain some performance.
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>The difference between Windows and Linux stems from their different origins. |
| 24 |
Linux/Unix was always meant to be a server system where the set of running
|
| 25 |
processes doesn't change that often. Therefore it tries to keep pages in memory
|
| 26 |
for as long as possible.
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
>Windows' approach to the problem is geared to desktop performance and so it |
| 29 |
swaps out 'unused' pages as soon as possible to free memory and keep startup time
|
| 30 |
short for programs being loaded.
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
>The behaviour of Linux is actually hotly debated by the developers as you can |
| 33 |
see on these two pages, which btw also include some hints on how to tune swapping:
|
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
>http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/3000 |
| 36 |
>http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/3202 |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
>Have a nice weekend and kind regards |
| 39 |
>floki |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
>-- |
| 43 |
>gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
---- Introducing Spymac MailPro: http://www.spymac.com/mailpro/
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
--
|
| 50 |
gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list |
Archives