On 8/17/20 12:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
I don't know what smem's Swap column is showing. It doesn't match
/proc/pid/status -> VmSwap
sudo smem -t --sort swap
PID User Command Swap USS PSS RSS
...
3 chris/usr/bin/gnome-shell4912
El lun., 17 ago. 2020 a las 13:02, Chris Murphy ()
escribió:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 8:09 AM Sergio Belkin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > El sáb., 15 ago. 2020 a las 21:46, Samuel Sieb ()
> escribió:
> >>
> >> On 8/15/20 1:32 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
> >> > Nice, my only doubt is why smem and tools ali
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 8:09 AM Sergio Belkin wrote:
>
>
>
> El sáb., 15 ago. 2020 a las 21:46, Samuel Sieb () escribió:
>>
>> On 8/15/20 1:32 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
>> > Nice, my only doubt is why smem and tools alike cannot show those
>> > processes using anon pages in swap...
>>
>> I posted a
El sáb., 15 ago. 2020 a las 21:46, Samuel Sieb () escribió:
> On 8/15/20 1:32 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
> > Nice, my only doubt is why smem and tools alike cannot show those
> > processes using anon pages in swap...
>
> I posted a bash command line in an earlier email that will give you that
> info
On 8/15/20 1:32 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
Nice, my only doubt is why smem and tools alike cannot show those
processes using anon pages in swap...
I posted a bash command line in an earlier email that will give you that
information.
___
devel mailing
El sáb., 15 ago. 2020 a las 17:09, Chris Murphy ()
escribió:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 1:59 PM Sergio Belkin wrote:
> >
> > Right now I have this with sudo smem -c "pid name swap pss" -s swap -k -t
> >
> > 4105 cleanupd 2.5M 132.0K
> > 731103 firewalld2
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 1:59 PM Sergio Belkin wrote:
>
> Right now I have this with sudo smem -c "pid name swap pss" -s swap -k -t
>
> 4105 cleanupd 2.5M 132.0K
> 731103 firewalld2.7M23.7M
> 4528 powerline-daemo 3.3M11.2M
> 5078 co
El sáb., 15 ago. 2020 a las 14:58, Chris Murphy ()
escribió:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 11:54 AM Chris Murphy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 11:09 AM Sergio Belkin wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > However swap usage is still high :
> > > > free -m
> > > > totalused
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 11:54 AM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 11:09 AM Sergio Belkin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > However swap usage is still high :
> > > free -m
> > > totalusedfree shared buff/cache
> > > available
> > > Mem: 15887
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 11:09 AM Sergio Belkin wrote:
>
>
>
> > However swap usage is still high :
> > free -m
> > totalusedfree shared buff/cache
> > available
> > Mem: 158878577118745876123
> > 2382
> > Swap:
> However swap usage is still high :
> free -m
> totalusedfree shared buff/cache
available
> Mem: 158878577118745876123
2382
> Swap: 40953854 241
>
> It's weird, isn't it?
>> It's consistent. O
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 3:04 PM Sergio Belkin wrote:
>
> Good question this the output of he last lines of smem -c "name swap" -s swap
> -k -t
>
> kaccess 4.1M
> kded54.5M
> cadmus 5.0M
> konsole 5.4M
> xdg-de
El vie., 14 ago. 2020 a las 16:32, Chris Murphy ()
escribió:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:42 PM Sergio Belkin wrote:
> >
> > 2 comments:
> > - I don't use disk-based swap, only zram.
> > - It happened again, and in this case there is no Virtual Machine nor
> Zoom app running:
> > ago 14 15:08:37
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:42 PM Sergio Belkin wrote:
>
> 2 comments:
> - I don't use disk-based swap, only zram.
> - It happened again, and in this case there is no Virtual Machine nor Zoom
> app running:
> ago 14 15:08:37 dublin.ireland.home earlyoom[888]: sending SIGTERM to process
> 2052260
El vie., 14 ago. 2020 a las 9:28, Przemek Klosowski via devel (<
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>) escribió:
> On 8/14/20 7:33 AM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 1:16:34 PM MST Przemek Klosowski via devel
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> This is weird---your swap was 100% full, and r
On 8/14/20 7:33 AM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 1:16:34 PM MST Przemek Klosowski via devel
wrote:
This is weird---your swap was 100% full, and ram almost full, and yet
killing 4GB VirtualBox didn't seem to free up memory. I suspect some
sort of measurement or reportin
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 7:34 AM John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 1:16:34 PM MST Przemek Klosowski via devel
> wrote:
> > On 8/12/20 2:27 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
> >
> > > Hi!
> > > I 've just had a problem using EarlyOOM + ZRAM. I haven't a disk-based
> > > swap partitio
On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 1:16:34 PM MST Przemek Klosowski via devel
wrote:
> On 8/12/20 2:27 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> > I 've just had a problem using EarlyOOM + ZRAM. I haven't a disk-based
> > swap partition.
> > I was using mainly Zoom (desktop app) + Firefox + VirtualBox (De
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 12:28 PM Sergio Belkin wrote:
>
> Hi!
> I 've just had a problem using EarlyOOM + ZRAM. I haven't a disk-based swap
> partition.
> I was using mainly Zoom (desktop app) + Firefox + VirtualBox (Debian with 4GB
> of RAM), and EarlyOOM killed Zoom in the middle of a call :(
>> 0.00%)
> > > low memory! at or below SIGTERM limits: mem 2.52%, swap 10.00%
> >> sending SIGTERM to process 1898342 uid 1000 "zoom": badness 36, VmRSS
> >> 721
> >> MiB
> >> process exited after 0.0 seconds
> >>
&g
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 5:43 pm, Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
but it might instead get confused
I meant to write: it might *then* get confused. That is, it should
always start by killing the right process, but it might then continue
to kill more unnecessarily.
earlyoom actually works best with only zram. If you have a disk-based
swap partition, your system is likely to become frozen and unusable
before earlyoom gets a chance to save you.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 4:16 pm, Przemek Klosowski via devel
wrote:
This is weird---your swap was 100% full, an
1000 "zoom": badness 36, VmRSS 721
MiB
process exited after 0.0 seconds
So I wonder if is advisable using EarlyOOM + ZRAM Only, what do you
think?
Thanks in advance!
Please keep this in mind going forward, and take a moment to consider enabling
EarlyOOM in Fedora. As it turns out
El mié., 12 ago. 2020 a las 17:17, Przemek Klosowski via devel (<
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>) escribió:
> On 8/12/20 2:27 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
> > Hi!
> > I 've just had a problem using EarlyOOM + ZRAM. I haven't a disk-based
> > swap partition.
> > I was using mainly Zoom (desktop app) +
er 0.0 seconds
> > mem avail: 337 of 15887 MiB ( 2.13%), swap free:0 of 4095 MiB (
> 0.00%)
> > low memory! at or below SIGTERM limits: mem 2.52%, swap 10.00%
> > sending SIGTERM to process 1898342 uid 1000 "zoom": badness 36, VmRSS 721
> > MiB
> &
El mié., 12 ago. 2020 a las 15:49, Samuel Sieb () escribió:
> On 8/12/20 11:27 AM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
> > I 've just had a problem using EarlyOOM + ZRAM. I haven't a disk-based
> > swap partition.
> > I was using mainly Zoom (desktop app) + Firefox + VirtualBox (Debian
> > with 4GB of RAM), and
On 8/12/20 2:27 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
Hi!
I 've just had a problem using EarlyOOM + ZRAM. I haven't a disk-based
swap partition.
I was using mainly Zoom (desktop app) + Firefox + VirtualBox (Debian
with 4GB of RAM), and EarlyOOM killed Zoom in the middle of a call :(
This is weird---your s
s exited after 0.0 seconds
> mem avail: 337 of 15887 MiB ( 2.13%), swap free:0 of 4095 MiB ( 0.00%)
> low memory! at or below SIGTERM limits: mem 2.52%, swap 10.00%
> sending SIGTERM to process 1898342 uid 1000 "zoom": badness 36, VmRSS 721
> MiB
> process exited a
On 8/12/20 11:27 AM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
I 've just had a problem using EarlyOOM + ZRAM. I haven't a disk-based
swap partition.
I was using mainly Zoom (desktop app) + Firefox + VirtualBox (Debian
with 4GB of RAM), and EarlyOOM killed Zoom in the middle of a call :(
This is the log:
The log
721
MiB
process exited after 0.0 seconds
So I wonder if is advisable using EarlyOOM + ZRAM Only, what do you
think?
Thanks in advance!
--
--
Sergio Belkin
LPIC-2 Certified - http://www.lpi.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
30 matches
Mail list logo
