[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've kind of side tracked, but Yes, I do understand the limitations of
running without swap. However, in the interest of performance, I, and in
fact my whole organization which runs about 300 servers, disable swap.
We've never had an out of memory problem in the past because of kernel
memory. Is that wrong? We can't typically afford to have the kernel swap
out portions of the application to disk and back.
Why do you think your performance *improves* if you don't use
swap? It is much more likely it *deteriates* because your swap
accumulates stuff you do not use.
Are you trying to convince me that having applications/application data
occasionally swapped out to disk is actually faster than keeping it all
in memory?
I have another box, which I LU'd to U1 a while ago. Its actually my
primary desktop, a 2100z. After the upgrade I noticed my browser,
firefox, was running slower. It was sluggish to respond when say I moved
from reading my mail with thunderbird to firefox.
Looked at swap, wait a minute, LU switched on an inactive swap partition
I had disabled long ago.
Removed the swap partition, and now everything is quite snappy.
The question really becomes, how do I "pin" desirable applications in
memory while only allowing "dirty" memory to be shifted out to disk.
And still regardless of the swap issue. The bigger issue is that ZFS has
about 1G of memory it won't free up for applications. Is it relying on
the existance of swap to dump those pages out? Or should it be releasing
memory itself?
--joe
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
