From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 6 12:22:07 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDFF016A420 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:22:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from laszlof@vonostingroup.com) Received: from ritamari.vonostingroup.com (ritamari.vonostingroup.com [216.144.193.230]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 651C943D45 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:22:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from laszlof@vonostingroup.com) Received: from c-71-227-92-22.hsd1.mi.comcast.net ([71.227.92.22] helo=[192.168.0.6]) by ritamari.vonostingroup.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FGEjL-0002E4-0q; Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:22:27 -0500 Message-ID: <440C2983.6070101@vonostingroup.com> Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:22:27 -0500 From: "Frank J. Laszlo" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060123) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Kinsey References: <440B7224.4060404@alum.mit.edu> <440B93EC.5010600@vonostingroup.com> <440BAD5D.6060208@daleco.biz> In-Reply-To: <440BAD5D.6060208@daleco.biz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ritamari.vonostingroup.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [26 6] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - vonostingroup.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: Michael Tuchman , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Applications using hard disk too often X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:22:08 -0000 Kevin Kinsey wrote: > Frank J. Laszlo wrote: > >> Michael Tuchman wrote: >> >>> I am running freeBSD 5.4 stable on a P133 box with 128 Mb ram. >>> Although I don't think I'm overloading the system, it seems that >>> my system is using virtual memory too often. Admittedly, this >>> is a subjective question where 'too often' means only 'more often >>> than I remember with other *nix-like operating environments on >>> even weaker machines'. >>> > > Without some clue as to what the system is doing, IMHO it's difficult > for anyone to speculate why you'd be "swapping" so much. FreeBSD > uses all the memory it has because the designers know that "free > memory is wasted memory" ... I don't know where that statement > originated, but you'll hear it from FreeBSD programmers if you keep > your ears open. > > One possibility is that you have actually configured **too much swap > space** (Joshua Coombs, http://www.bsdnews.org/03/tuning.pdf). > > I'd also have to say that I'd consider this box to be a tad slow for > a workstation unless your graphical environment was rather lightweight. > I've tried GNOME2 on an AMD K6-2 475 with 128 MB and it just > crawled. It's slightly better with XFCE, but to get much performance > from a box like that I'd recommend black/fluxbox or something equally > easy on the resources. If this isn't a graphical environment, then > something *is* wrong, I'd think. > >>> Can anybody offer advice on memory management, appropriate >>> places to read in the documentation, or other useful links? >> > > Advice: with 128MB of RAM, don't open 127MB PDF files > > Reading: Chapter 2 of McCusick's "Design & Implementation": > > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/design-44bsd/index.html > > and tuning(7) are a couple of canonical resources. Google is always > your friend, also. I apologize if that seems like "RTFM, newb"; it's > just > that IANAE and don't play one on the Internet, either. > > >>> I realize that the answer is 'it depends', so what I am asking is >>> really >>> * How can I find out if I change this annoying behavior for the better? >> > > Experiment? Add RAM; take away RAM; add more swap; take away some > swap. > > Of course, not all of those could be called exactly 'trivial' to the > system. > >>> * Would upgrading to 6.0 help? >> > > Possibly, but without knowing the cause it's hard to say for sure; > IOW, no silver bullet there. > > >>> This is an experimental box only. There is no critical data on it, >>> so data loss is not an issue when considering options. >> >> >> The 5.x series was a "transition" release, to ease the pain between >> 4.x and 6.x. > > > Hmm, I wonder. 4.X to 5.X wasn't completely "painless", (at least, you > had to take some pains to get it right), so I might contest this. Any > further discussion or speculation on this would place this posting in > the political rather than technical realm, which I am loathe to do. For > one reason or another, 6.X is out. 6.X is good. AFAIAC, 5.X was also > good and 4.X was good too. > >> I would recommend going up to 6.0 (or 6.1, But I have not >> yet tested it) Doing a fresh install would probably be in your best >> interest. > > > The transition from 5.4 to 6.X is quite trivial; the only reason a > "fresh install" might benefit is if the OP has too much swap and > wants to configure less during slicing. > > It's also possible that doing a fresh install of 6.0 would fix the > problem, but teach us nothing about the situation we'd hoped > to learn from?? > > I suggested a fresh install due to the fact that 6.0 has improved FS support. Including multi threading capabilities. And yes, the upgrade from 4.x -> 5.x was a PITA, But imagine the pain involved with a 4.x -> 6.x upgrade. ;) -Frank