On 08/20/2010 12:00 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:22:33 -0500 (CDT)
> Michael Hennebry wrote:
>> It makes sense that if a process insists on physically
>> contiguous memory and can't get it, the process would die,
>> but the above code does not tell the compiler what is to be
On 08/20/2010 11:22 AM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
>
>> On 08/20/2010 06:44 AM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
>>>
On 08/19/2010 02:15 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
>
>> Problem comes as
Michael Hennebry web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu> writes:
>
> > If I remember my Kerningham-Ritchie correctly, the answer is yes, since
> > C relies on pointer arithmetic to refer to the elements of the array.
> > The "fred" and "greg" variables are pointers to the beginning of the
> > corresponding memor
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:22:33 -0500 (CDT)
> Michael Hennebry wrote:
>> It makes sense that if a process insists on physically
>> contiguous memory and can't get it, the process would die,
>> but the above code does not tell the compiler what is to be ach
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:22:33 -0500 (CDT)
Michael Hennebry wrote:
> It makes sense that if a process insists on physically
> contiguous memory and can't get it, the process would die,
> but the above code does not tell the compiler what is to be achieved.
>
> In the following, would fred or greg n
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
> On 08/20/2010 06:44 AM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/19/2010 02:15 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
> Problem comes as Michael explains, that when a process needs a large
> "ph
On 08/20/2010 07:36 AM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 16:15 -0500, Michael Hennebry wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
>>
>>> Problem comes as Michael explains, that when a process needs a large
>>> "physically contiguous" chunk of memory, it might not be available.
>>> That
On 08/20/2010 06:44 AM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
>
>> On 08/19/2010 02:15 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
>>>
Problem comes as Michael explains, that when a process needs a large
"physically contiguous" chunk of memory, it
On 08/20/2010 03:36 PM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 16:15 -0500, Michael Hennebry wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
>>
>>> Problem comes as Michael explains, that when a process needs a large
>>> "physically contiguous" chunk of memory, it might not be available.
>>> That sa
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 16:15 -0500, Michael Hennebry wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
>
> > Problem comes as Michael explains, that when a process needs a large
> > "physically contiguous" chunk of memory, it might not be available.
> > That said, usually, requests for physically contiguous
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
> On 08/19/2010 02:15 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
>>
>>> Problem comes as Michael explains, that when a process needs a large
>>> "physically contiguous" chunk of memory, it might not be available.
>>> That said, usually, requests f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/19/2010 10:22 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Gregory Hosler wrote:
>
>> If the memory gets fragged and the kernel wants to defrag, e.g. for a memory
>> request from an application, in order to defrag any "dirty" data portions
On 08/19/2010 02:15 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
>
>> Problem comes as Michael explains, that when a process needs a large
>> "physically contiguous" chunk of memory, it might not be available.
>> That said, usually, requests for physically contiguous memory is onl
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 09:22 -0500, Michael Hennebry wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Gregory Hosler wrote:
>>
>>> If the memory gets fragged and the kernel wants to defrag, e.g. for a memory
>>> request from an application, in order to defrag any "di
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, JD wrote:
> Problem comes as Michael explains, that when a process needs a large
> "physically contiguous" chunk of memory, it might not be available.
> That said, usually, requests for physically contiguous memory is only
> needed when wanting to map very large number of DMA
On 08/19/2010 10:46 AM, Tim wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 09:22 -0500, Michael Hennebry wrote:
>> I didn't realize that memory could get fragged.
> An old problem, and one reason why some other OSs *needed* occasional
> reboots, after a while. Even quitting all running applications, back
> down
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 09:22 -0500, Michael Hennebry wrote:
> I didn't realize that memory could get fragged.
An old problem, and one reason why some other OSs *needed* occasional
reboots, after a while. Even quitting all running applications, back
down to just having the basic desktop, and delibe
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>Sent: Aug 19, 2010 7:33 AM
>To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
>Subject: Re: Is swap really needed when RAM's aplenty
>
>On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 09:22 -0500, Michael Hennebry wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Gregory Hosler wrote:
>>
&g
On 08/19/2010 03:22 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Gregory Hosler wrote:
>
>> If the memory gets fragged and the kernel wants to defrag, e.g. for a memory
>> request from an application, in order to defrag any "dirty" data portions
>> (those
>> pages that have been written to)
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 09:22 -0500, Michael Hennebry wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Gregory Hosler wrote:
>
> > If the memory gets fragged and the kernel wants to defrag, e.g. for a memory
> > request from an application, in order to defrag any "dirty" data portions
> > (those
> > pages that have b
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Gregory Hosler wrote:
> If the memory gets fragged and the kernel wants to defrag, e.g. for a memory
> request from an application, in order to defrag any "dirty" data portions
> (those
> pages that have been written to), the kernel *requires* there to be swap.
> Otherwise th
So the morel of the story is ( as per my understanding forgive me
if I miss understood. ),The regular day-to-day working desktop OS
doesn't need the swap space (especially if it is having more then or
equal 4GB RAM ) , Mission Critical Server must have swap space
even-though it is having
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/18/2010 07:00 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> I'll probably have a new server with 16 gigs of RAM on the way, soon.
>
> With this amount of RAM being sufficient, do I really need a swap partition
> set
> up? I do understand that a swap partition i
On 08/18/2010 05:00 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> I'll probably have a new server with 16 gigs of RAM on the way, soon.
>
> With this amount of RAM being sufficient, do I really need a swap
> partition set up? I do understand that a swap partition is needed for
> hibernation, but this server doe
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> I'll probably have a new server with 16 gigs of RAM on the way, soon.
>
> With this amount of RAM being sufficient, do I really need a swap
> partition set up? I do understand that a swap partition is needed for
> hibernation, but this server does not need to hibernate.
On 08/18/2010 10:55 AM, James Mckenzie wrote:
> Andras Simon wrote:
>> Sent: Aug 18, 2010 4:20 AM
>> To: Community support for Fedora users
>> Subject: Re: Is swap really needed when RAM's aplenty
>>
>> On 8/18/10, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>>> I&#x
On 8/18/10, James Mckenzie wrote:
> Andras Simon wrote:
>>I'm not sure what you mean by "need", but Fedora will run without a
>>swap partition.
>>
> It will, that is true, but from my UNIX training, it is always a good idea
> to have a swap partition, but you don't have to follow the 2x rule. 5
Andras Simon wrote:
>Sent: Aug 18, 2010 4:20 AM
>To: Community support for Fedora users
>Subject: Re: Is swap really needed when RAM's aplenty
>
>On 8/18/10, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>> I'll probably have a new server with 16 gigs of RAM on the way, soon.
>
On 08/18/2010 04:00 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> With this amount of RAM being sufficient, do I really need a swap
> partition set up? I do understand that a swap partition is needed for
> hibernation, but this server does not need to hibernate.
Depends on the purpose of the machine. Desktops oft
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 11:37 +, JB wrote:
> Sam Varshavchik courier-mta.com> writes:
>
> >
> > I'll probably have a new server with 16 gigs of RAM on the way, soon.
> >
> > With this amount of RAM being sufficient, do I really need a swap partition
> > set up? I do understand that a swap pa
Sam Varshavchik courier-mta.com> writes:
>
> I'll probably have a new server with 16 gigs of RAM on the way, soon.
>
> With this amount of RAM being sufficient, do I really need a swap partition
> set up? I do understand that a swap partition is needed for hibernation, but
> this server does
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> I'll probably have a new server with 16 gigs of RAM on the way, soon.
>
> With this amount of RAM being sufficient, do I really need a swap partition
> set up? I do understand that a swap partition is needed for hibernation, but
> this serv
On 8/18/10, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> I'll probably have a new server with 16 gigs of RAM on the way, soon.
>
> With this amount of RAM being sufficient, do I really need a swap partition
> set up? I do understand that a swap partition is needed for hibernation, but
> this server does not need to h
I'll probably have a new server with 16 gigs of RAM on the way, soon.
With this amount of RAM being sufficient, do I really need a swap partition
set up? I do understand that a swap partition is needed for hibernation, but
this server does not need to hibernate.
pgpfNvSVersCu.pgp
Descriptio
34 matches
Mail list logo
