From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Aug 3 21:34:54 1995 Return-Path: questions-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id VAA16578 for questions-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 21:34:54 -0700 Received: from nero.uucp (dialup-pkr-2-8.network.umr.edu [131.151.253.26]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA16553 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 21:34:48 -0700 Received: by nero.uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0seERs-0004JUC; Thu, 3 Aug 95 23:33 CDT Message-Id: From: serges@umr.edu Subject: Re: 2.0.5 Eager to go into swap To: freebsd-questions@freefall.cdrom.com Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 23:33:28 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <199508031934.AA10594@diamond.sierra.net> from "Jim Howard" at Aug 3, 95 11:38:05 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1065 Sender: questions-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk [deleted]> > I have 8 MB of RAM and 16 MB of swap partition, and from the > sound of it, my machine acts a lot like machines with 32 MB! > How can this be? I would say that if this is true, then somthing is wrong with the virtual memory or paging algorithm inside of FreeBSD. > My general impression is, that my system acts like the kernel > were using the total amount of virtual memory allocated to > processes, rather than the number of pages actually > occupied at the moment, as the basis for deciding when to > swap. Which is crazy. The whole idea of swapping is to swap > out occupied pages, when no unoccupied pages are left > available, to make room for pages that need to be occupied > right away. With mmap(), which the kernel also uses internally True, and what everyone seems to be saying is that due to the design of the shared libs, the core memory is saturated fairly quickly; on 8 MB systems as well as 20 and 32 MB systems; consequently producing page faults and thus swapping, and then the dreaded virtual memory exhaustion. Serge-