On Tuesday 26 July 2011 04:54:27 Grant wrote:
> Is this because I've eselect'ed icedtea6-bin instead of sun-jdk-1.6?
>
> BTW, can anyone tell me why I'm using icedtea6-bin instead of icedtea?
I don't know. On this box the only java-vm installed is icedtea6-bin.
--
Rgds
Peter L
>> Sounds like a case for a swap partition that can be activated when you
>> need it for big emerges. I hit the same thing with firefox-5 oddly
>> enough.
>
> I have one smallish swap partition at PRI=10 and a bigger one at PRI=1.
>
>> As for OOo, long ago I figured the pain wasn't worth the gain s
>>> If my main rig starts using swap a lot, I'm going to be very curious. I
>>> even used 8Gbs to put portages work directory on tmpfs. I still didn't
>>> use
>>> any swap. By the way, that doesn't seem to make the compiles any faster.
>>> o_O
>>>
>> CPU bottleneck?
>>
>> - Grant
>>
> I sort of
Grant wrote:
...
If my main rig starts using swap a lot, I'm going to be very curious. I
even used 8Gbs to put portages work directory on tmpfs. I still didn't use
any swap. By the way, that doesn't seem to make the compiles any faster.
o_O
CPU bottleneck?
- Grant
I sort
...
>> That all makes perfect sense. So the reason a swap larger than maybe
>> 1GB is not usually implemented is because idle processes don't
>> normally have more than a few hundred MB of pages in memory?
>>
> That's not entirely true, either. For example, My laptop has 4GB of
> swap. Why? Well
...
> If my main rig starts using swap a lot, I'm going to be very curious. I
> even used 8Gbs to put portages work directory on tmpfs. I still didn't use
> any swap. By the way, that doesn't seem to make the compiles any faster.
> o_O
CPU bottleneck?
- Grant
...
> Next I'd look at tuning your Mysql config. If you've never touched
> my.cnf, by default it's set to use 64MB IIRC. You may need to raise this to
> get better performance. key_buffer and innodb_buffer_pool_size are the only
> two I'd modify without knowing more.
>
> kashani
I'm running
On Friday, July 22 at 11:13 (-0700), Grant said:
> That all makes perfect sense. So the reason a swap larger than maybe
> 1GB is not usually implemented is because idle processes don't
> normally have more than a few hundred MB of pages in memory?
>
That's not entirely true, either. For examp
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Grant wrote:
>> ...
Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
>>>
>>> I have 12GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on my
Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Friday 22 July 2011 19:13:35 Grant wrote:
Wouldn't a sufficiently large swap (100GB for example) completely prevent
out of memory conditions and the oom-killer?
Of course, on any system with more than a few dozen MB of RAM, but I can't
imagine any combination
On Friday, July 22 at 19:55 (+0100), Peter Humphrey said:
> > Wouldn't a sufficiently large swap (100GB for example) completely
> prevent
> > out of memory conditions and the oom-killer?
>
> Of course, on any system with more than a few dozen MB of RAM, but I
> can't
> imagine any combination
On Friday, July 22 at 11:46 (-0700), Grant said:
> That's what I'm curious about. If some swap is good, why isn't more
> better? Paul has demonstrated that a Linux system will put at least
> 10GB to use and probably much more given the opportunity. Disk space
> is so cheap, why isn't everyone
On Friday 22 July 2011 19:46:25 Grant wrote:
> That's what I'm curious about. If some swap is good, why isn't more
> better? Paul has demonstrated that a Linux system will put at least
> 10GB to use and probably much more given the opportunity. Disk space
> is so cheap, why isn't everyone runni
Grant wrote:
...
To confuse you even more, there is a swappiness setting as well. On my old
x86 rig, I have 2Gbs of ram. My hard drive is really slow since it is IDE.
I set swappiness to 20. That tells the kernel that I have swap space but
don't use it unless you must. For what I use t
On Friday 22 July 2011 19:13:35 Grant wrote:
> Wouldn't a sufficiently large swap (100GB for example) completely prevent
> out of memory conditions and the oom-killer?
Of course, on any system with more than a few dozen MB of RAM, but I can't
imagine any combination of running programs whose siz
> ...
>>> Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
>>> second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
>>> extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
>>
>> I have 12GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on my main PC. Why? Because... why
>> not? :) After 5 days
...
>> Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
>> second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
>> extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
>
> I have 12GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on my main PC. Why? Because... why
> not? :) After 5 days uptime,
...
> To confuse you even more, there is a swappiness setting as well. On my old
> x86 rig, I have 2Gbs of ram. My hard drive is really slow since it is IDE.
> I set swappiness to 20. That tells the kernel that I have swap space but
> don't use it unless you must. For what I use the rig for, 2
>> >> Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
>> >> second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
>> >> extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
>> >>
>> > You've not understood what I said, I think. Swap is not useful as
>> > filesystem cache.
>> Assuming you have the concept right, if I have 'MaxClients 50' and
>> 'MaxSpareServers 10', there should never be more than 60 apache2
>> processes running and I should be able to serve up to 50 simultaneous
>> TCP sessions?
>
> I'd guess it wouldnt go past 50.
>
>> Can anyone explain why I have
On Thursday 21 July 2011 21:08:49 Albert Hopkins did opine thusly:
> > "When a linux machine hits swap, it does so very aggressively,
> > there is nothing nice about it at all. The entire machine slows
> > to a painstaking crawl for easily a minute at a time while the
> > kernel writes pages out to
On Thursday 21 July 2011 17:26:33 kashani did opine thusly:
> On 7/21/2011 4:53 PM, Grant wrote:
> > So swap isn't treated exactly like RAM. It actually has special
> > handling in Linux which makes it beneficial to have on almost
> > any
> > Linux system? According to Alan, things get very bad w
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Grant wrote:
>>> Its more how much i/o rather than the size. If you have a bunch of
>>> stuff swapped out, but it hardly ever needs to be swapped in, the
>>> impact will be low.
>>>
>>> Keep an eye on the use with vmstat;
>>>
>>> adam@rix ~ $ vmstat 5
>>> procs ---
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:16:41 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> Think of it this way: You have a house with an attic. Now the attic is
> not as "efficient" as say, the middle of your living room. You have a
> Christmas tree, but you only use that Christmas tree maybe once a year.
> Now it's much mor
On Thursday 21 July 2011 21:44:51 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Sounds like a case for a swap partition that can be activated when you
> need it for big emerges. I hit the same thing with firefox-5 oddly
> enough.
I have one smallish swap partition at PRI=10 and a bigger one at PRI=1.
> As for OOo, lon
Dale wrote:
Grant wrote:
Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
You've not understood what I said, I think. Swap is not useful as
filesystem cache. Swa
Grant wrote:
Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
You've not understood what I said, I think. Swap is not useful as
filesystem cache. Swap is
On Thursday, July 21 at 20:07 (-0700), Grant said:
> >> Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
> >> second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
> >> extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
> >>
> > You've not understood what I said, I thin
> Assuming you have the concept right, if I have 'MaxClients 50' and
> 'MaxSpareServers 10', there should never be more than 60 apache2
> processes running and I should be able to serve up to 50 simultaneous
> TCP sessions?
I'd guess it wouldnt go past 50.
> Can anyone explain why I have 20 apach
>> Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
>> second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
>> extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
>>
> You've not understood what I said, I think. Swap is not useful as
> filesystem cache. Swap is as effici
>> So with KeepAlive on, the same apache2 process serves the page itself
>> and all associated files?
>
> That's my understanding, but i'm not sure if its what i've read over
> the years or just assumed.
>
> The way I think it worked is;
> - one apache process running as root, listening on port 80;
> - so when using persistence, the same user apache process handles all
> the gets until it hits a client or user imposed limit,
That should have been "client or server imposed limit"
> So with KeepAlive on, the same apache2 process serves the page itself
> and all associated files?
That's my understanding, but i'm not sure if its what i've read over
the years or just assumed.
The way I think it worked is;
- one apache process running as root, listening on port 80;
- once a co
On Thursday, July 21 at 18:43 (-0700), Grant said:
> If I understand correctly, an out-of-memory condition that would lock
> up a system without swap, will cause it to thrash with swap. A remote
> system of mine was locked up for many hours due to running out of
> memory without swap. If I had
On Thursday, July 21 at 18:29 (-0700), Grant said:
> Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a
> second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some
> extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file?
>
You've not understood what I said, I think. Swap is not
>> I'm trying to figure out the maximum number of apache2 processes that
>> could run simultaneously according to my config so I don't run out of
>> memory again. I have KeepAlive on, but I can see in the log that a
>> different pid serves each file associated with a particular page
>> request.
>
>> So swap isn't treated exactly like RAM. It actually has special
>> handling in Linux which makes it beneficial to have on almost any
>> Linux system? According to Alan, things get very bad when a Linux
>> system hits swap. How can behavior like this be beneficial:
>>
>> "When a linux machine
> I'm trying to figure out the maximum number of apache2 processes that
> could run simultaneously according to my config so I don't run out of
> memory again. I have KeepAlive on, but I can see in the log that a
> different pid serves each file associated with a particular page
> request.
Ok, I
>> Its more how much i/o rather than the size. If you have a bunch of
>> stuff swapped out, but it hardly ever needs to be swapped in, the
>> impact will be low.
>>
>> Keep an eye on the use with vmstat;
>>
>> adam@rix ~ $ vmstat 5
>> procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io -system-
>>> apache MaxClients has been lowered to 50 which is a shame because I
>>> have 30+ separate images on each of my pages and that number can not
>>> be reduced. This means I may not be able to serve more than 1 full
>>> page at a time.
>>
>> This is wrong.
>
> Agreed. From TFM; "The MaxClie
On Friday, July 22 at 10:56 (+1000), Adam Carter said:
> Its more how much i/o rather than the size. If you have a bunch of
> stuff swapped out, but it hardly ever needs to be swapped in, the
> impact will be low.
>
> Keep an eye on the use with vmstat;
>
> adam@rix ~ $ vmstat 5
> procs --
On Thursday, July 21 at 16:53 (-0700), Grant said:
> So swap isn't treated exactly like RAM. It actually has special
> handling in Linux which makes it beneficial to have on almost any
> Linux system? According to Alan, things get very bad when a Linux
> system hits swap. How can behavior li
> OK, how about I enable a 512MB swap file and keep an eye on it. As
> long as I'm not using more than 200MB, I'm not suffering from disk
> swap slowdown, right?
Its more how much i/o rather than the size. If you have a bunch of
stuff swapped out, but it hardly ever needs to be swapped in, the
im
> Any reason you're still using MyISAM tables? Innodb is almost as
> fast
> or much much faster than MyISAM in nearly every way these days.
Can multiple processes be utilized for mysql like they are for
apache2? Perhaps not since it's a database?
>>>
>>> My
>> apache MaxClients has been lowered to 50 which is a shame because I
>> have 30+ separate images on each of my pages and that number can not
>> be reduced. This means I may not be able to serve more than 1 full
>> page at a time.
>
> This is wrong.
Agreed. From TFM; "The MaxClients direc
>> So swap isn't treated exactly like RAM. It actually has special
>> handling in Linux which makes it beneficial to have on almost any
>> Linux system? According to Alan, things get very bad when a Linux
>> system hits swap. How can behavior like this be beneficial:
>>
>> "When a linux machine
On 7/21/2011 5:14 PM, Grant wrote:
Any reason you're still using MyISAM tables? Innodb is almost as
fast
or much much faster than MyISAM in nearly every way these days.
Can multiple processes be utilized for mysql like they are for
apache2? Perhaps not since it's a database?
On 7/21/2011 4:53 PM, Grant wrote:
So swap isn't treated exactly like RAM. It actually has special
handling in Linux which makes it beneficial to have on almost any
Linux system? According to Alan, things get very bad when a Linux
system hits swap. How can behavior like this be beneficial:
"
>>> Any reason you're still using MyISAM tables? Innodb is almost as
>>> fast
>>> or much much faster than MyISAM in nearly every way these days.
>>
>> Can multiple processes be utilized for mysql like they are for
>> apache2? Perhaps not since it's a database?
>
> Mysql is multithre
>> It sounds like adding physical RAM is better than enabling swap in
>> every way. I'll stay in the anti-swap camp.
>
> I don't see why it has to be one way *or* the other...
>
> Yes more RAM is always going to be better than more swap, RAM is just
> way faster than disk, however byte-per-byte, d
On Thursday 21 July 2011 19:19:07 Michael Orlitzky did opine thusly:
> On 07/21/2011 04:49 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 July 2011 10:27:58 Grant did opine thusly:
> Thanks Paul. I'm leaning toward leaving swap disabled.
> So
> I'm sure I have the concept right, is ad
On Thursday 21 July 2011 16:27:03 Grant did opine thusly:
> >> > [..]
> >> >
> >> >> I think if you have 4GB of RAM you shouldn't need any
> >> >> swap
> >> >> under
> >> >> normal circumstances. I have a gentoo box with just
> >> >> 256MB of
> >> >> RAM
> >> >> that's running web server (apache +
>> > [..]
>> >
>> >> I think if you have 4GB of RAM you shouldn't need any swap
>> >> under
>> >> normal circumstances. I have a gentoo box with just 256MB of
>> >> RAM
>> >> that's running web server (apache + php), mail server (postfix
>> >> +
>> >> dovecot), and database (mariadb), and it works
...
> I would strongly advise you to make your own measurements and heed
> your own counsel. I can only speak from my own experience, and I may
> well be speaking a whole load of codswallop. Or I may be right and the
> opposing view is wrong. Who's to tell?
>
> My own experience with backing swap h
On 07/21/2011 04:49 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thursday 21 July 2011 10:27:58 Grant did opine thusly:
Thanks Paul. I'm leaning toward leaving swap disabled. So
I'm sure I have the concept right, is adding a 1GB swap
partition functionally identical to adding 1GB RAM with
re
On 7/21/2011 2:50 PM, Grant wrote:
Any reason you're still using MyISAM tables? Innodb is almost as fast
or much much faster than MyISAM in nearly every way these days.
Can multiple processes be utilized for mysql like they are for
apache2? Perhaps not since it's a database?
Mysql
On Thursday, July 21 at 10:27 (-0700), Grant said:
> It sounds like adding physical RAM is better than enabling swap in
> every way. I'll stay in the anti-swap camp.
I don't see why it has to be one way *or* the other...
Yes more RAM is always going to be better than more swap, RAM is just
wa
>>> Next I'd look at tuning your Mysql config. If you've never touched
>>> my.cnf, by default it's set to use 64MB IIRC. You may need to raise this
>>> to
>>> get better performance. key_buffer and innodb_buffer_pool_size are the
>>> only
>>> two I'd modify without knowing more.
>>
>> I use
>>> Also, run a caching proxy if at all possible. That made the single
>>> biggest difference for my server.
>>>
>>> Other useful things:
>>> * Set the MaxRequestsPerChild to something like 450.
>>
>> That's pretty low. You'd barely get your application parsed, cached,
>> and load some data
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is "mysqld invoked oom-killer". I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so I
su
>>> Next I'd look at tuning your Mysql config. If you've never touched
>>> my.cnf, by default it's set to use 64MB IIRC. You may need to raise this
>>> to
>>> get better performance. key_buffer and innodb_buffer_pool_size are the
>>> only
>>> two I'd modify without knowing more.
>>
>> I use
On Thursday 21 July 2011 10:27:58 Grant did opine thusly:
> >> Thanks Paul. I'm leaning toward leaving swap disabled. So
> >> I'm sure I have the concept right, is adding a 1GB swap
> >> partition functionally identical to adding 1GB RAM with
> >> regard to the potential for out-of-memory conditi
On Thursday 21 July 2011 10:30:21 Grant did opine thusly:
> > [..]
> >
> >> I think if you have 4GB of RAM you shouldn't need any swap
> >> under
> >> normal circumstances. I have a gentoo box with just 256MB of
> >> RAM
> >> that's running web server (apache + php), mail server (postfix
> >> +
>
On Thursday 21 July 2011 09:39:52 Grant did opine thusly:
> > My personal rule of thumb: if you hit swap, the bad thing has
> > already gone very very south, usually to the point where you
> > can't do much about it and it's already too late. Besides, that
> > bastard deomon spawn of satan called
On 7/21/2011 11:55 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:56 AM, kashani wrote:
On 7/20/2011 6:29 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
Also, run a caching proxy if at all possible. That made the single
biggest difference for my server.
Other useful things:
* Set the MaxRequestsPerChild to somet
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:56 AM, kashani wrote:
> On 7/20/2011 6:29 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>
>> Also, run a caching proxy if at all possible. That made the single
>> biggest difference for my server.
>>
>> Other useful things:
>> * Set the MaxRequestsPerChild to something like 450.
>
> Th
On 7/21/2011 10:22 AM, Grant wrote:
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is "mysqld invoked oom-killer". I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read previously that I later found out was
On 7/21/2011 9:53 AM, Grant wrote:
Next I'd look at tuning your Mysql config. If you've never touched
my.cnf, by default it's set to use 64MB IIRC. You may need to raise this to
get better performance. key_buffer and innodb_buffer_pool_size are the only
two I'd modify without knowing more
> [..]
>> I think if you have 4GB of RAM you shouldn't need any swap under
>> normal circumstances. I have a gentoo box with just 256MB of RAM
>> that's running web server (apache + php), mail server (postfix +
>> dovecot), and database (mariadb), and it works fine if i disable swap.
>> I do normal
>> Thanks Paul. I'm leaning toward leaving swap disabled. So I'm sure I
>> have the concept right, is adding a 1GB swap partition functionally
>> identical to adding 1GB RAM with regard to the potential for
>> out-of-memory conditions?
>
> Yep.
It sounds like adding physical RAM is better than e
* Paul Hartman [110721 12:33]:
[..]
> I think if you have 4GB of RAM you shouldn't need any swap under
> normal circumstances. I have a gentoo box with just 256MB of RAM
> that's running web server (apache + php), mail server (postfix +
> dovecot), and database (mariadb), and it works fine if i di
>> I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
>> kernel log is "mysqld invoked oom-killer". I haven't run into this
>> before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
>> something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so I
>> suppose I sh
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Grant wrote:
> Thanks Paul. I'm leaning toward leaving swap disabled. So I'm sure I
> have the concept right, is adding a 1GB swap partition functionally
> identical to adding 1GB RAM with regard to the potential for
> out-of-memory conditions?
Yep.
>> Hi Alan, I think it was your advice I took a long time ago when I
>> stopped installing new machines with a swap partition and disabled it
>> on my already-installed machines. Some time later, others on this
>> list caught wind of what I'd done and told me I was an idiot. Is
>> there a consens
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Grant wrote:
> Hi Alan, I think it was your advice I took a long time ago when I
> stopped installing new machines with a swap partition and disabled it
> on my already-installed machines. Some time later, others on this
> list caught wind of what I'd done and to
> I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
> kernel log is "mysqld invoked oom-killer". I haven't run into this
> before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
> something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so I
>>>
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is "mysqld invoked oom-killer". I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so I
su
>> I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
>> kernel log is "mysqld invoked oom-killer". I haven't run into this
>> before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based
>> on something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so
>> I suppose I sh
On 7/20/2011 6:29 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
Also, run a caching proxy if at all possible. That made the single
biggest difference for my server.
Other useful things:
* Set the MaxRequestsPerChild to something like 450.
That's pretty low. You'd barely get your application parsed, cached,
and lo
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:54 PM, kashani wrote:
> On 7/20/2011 4:08 PM, Grant wrote:
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is "mysqld invoked oom-killer". I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate
> The easiest thing to try is to turn off keepalives so child processes
> aren't hanging around keeping connections up.
KeepAliveTimeout defaults to 5 seconds, so that shouldn't be a
significant problem, and you get the efficiency of persistence and
probably pipelining too.
Could be worth reduc
On 7/20/2011 4:08 PM, Grant wrote:
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is "mysqld invoked oom-killer". I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read previously that I later found out was w
> Does it sound like apache2 was using up all the memory? If so, should
> I look further for a catalyst or did this likely happen slowly? What
> can I do to prevent it from happening again? Should I switch apache2
> from prefork to threads?
Do you need the full 256 instances?
How many simultan
>> I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
>> kernel log is "mysqld invoked oom-killer". I haven't run into this
>> before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
>> something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so I
>> suppose I sh
On Wednesday 20 July 2011 13:30:05 Grant did opine thusly:
> I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
> kernel log is "mysqld invoked oom-killer". I haven't run into this
> before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based
> on something I read previousl
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Grant wrote:
> I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
> kernel log is "mysqld invoked oom-killer". I haven't run into this
> before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
> something I read previously that I lat
I ran into an out of memory problem. The first mention of it in the
kernel log is "mysqld invoked oom-killer". I haven't run into this
before. I do have a swap partition but I don't activate it based on
something I read previously that I later found out was wrong so I
suppose I should activate i
87 matches
Mail list logo
