From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 9 5:15:36 2002 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 15F3B37B405 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 05:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from woozle.rinet.ru (woozle.rinet.ru [195.54.192.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B259243E09 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 05:15:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru) Received: from localhost (marck@localhost) by woozle.rinet.ru (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g69CFQe79990; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:15:26 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:15:26 +0400 (MSD) From: Dmitry Morozovsky To: Erik Trulsson Cc: Chuck Robey , FreeBSD Hackers List Subject: Re: swap & huge mem systems In-Reply-To: <20020709091803.GA8427@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> Message-ID: <20020709161044.C77578-100000@woozle.rinet.ru> X-NCC-RegID: ru.rinet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Erik Trulsson wrote: ET> > BTW, is it safe to create _interleaved_ swap totally sized slightly above ET> > the amount of physical RAM? I mean, is core writer interleve-aware, or ET> > does it need the first swap partiton large enough? ET> ET> The coredumping code does not know about interleaved swap. It just uses ET> a single swap partition which must be large enough. ET> Read the dumpon(8) manpage for more information. Yeah, I see (overlooked this somehow, sorry for the dumb question ;) So, if someone wants to get really quick swap and allocates 4 partitions on 4 drives *AND* also wand to get crashdumps, (s)he has to do this suboptimally (either allocate 1st more sized than phys RAM and other much smaller, or allocate approx 4 x phys RAM)? The, the question: which technique is preferrable? Sidenote: Yes, I'm aware that in "normal case" machine should not swap at all, but consider something like multi-user machine which is *normally* does not swap but need to adopt high peaks in load. Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, DM268-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message