From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 10 18:09:01 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940F516A4CE for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:09:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from cydem.org (h24-66-230-151.ed.shawcable.net [24.66.230.151]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B25F43D21 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:09:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from soralx@cydem.org) Received: by cydem.org (Postfix/FreeBSD, from userid 426) id 3EE3C38E38; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:08:59 -0700 (MST) Received: from h24-66-229-2.ed.shawcable.net (h24-66-229-2.ed.shawcable.net [24.66.229.2]) by cydem.org (Postfix/FreeBSD) with ESMTP id D17D53876C for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:08:58 -0700 (MST) From: To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:08:57 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <2946E9F05C8DD511A7DC0002A5608CE401143D3F@gbchm201.exgb01.exch.eds.com> In-Reply-To: <2946E9F05C8DD511A7DC0002A5608CE401143D3F@gbchm201.exgb01.exch.eds.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312101849.34457.soralx@cydem.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: adding more ram X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:09:01 -0000 > The same was true for 10.20 and 11 Versions of HPUX - I believe there once > was I very long going debate when the "new" FreeBSD vm was made on the > issue. The fundamental question at the time was what to do when you run out > of swap/vm space. The 1-1 backing of swap space was seen as a way to avoid > that you have resort to kill random processes in order to free up space and > the tradition with the 2-1 swap ratio used to have "a performance reason" > in the initial Unix Swap and paging implementations. I can't seem to recall > the actual reason While we're at this topic, can somebody plz briefly explain how does swap performance depend on swap size? From `man 7 tuning` (May 25, 2001): The kernel's VM paging algorithms are tuned to perform best when there is at least 2x swap versus main mem- ory. Configuring too little swap can lead to inefficiencies in the VM page scanning code as well as create issues later on if you add more mem- ory to your machine. Is this still true? For -CURRENT also? 10.12.2003; 18:42:17 [SorAlx] http://cydem.org.ua/