Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:56:22 -0700 From: bob prohaska <fbsd@www.zefox.net> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Cc: Tom Vijlbrief <tvijlbrief@gmail.com>, "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>, bob prohaska <fbsd@www.zefox.net> Subject: Re: GPT vs MBR for swap devices Message-ID: <20180614175622.GC35161@www.zefox.net> In-Reply-To: <201806141653.w5EGrvpR045732@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <20180614164436.GA35161@www.zefox.net> <201806141653.w5EGrvpR045732@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:53:57AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > I would be very interested in seeing if resizing the swap partition > in the example that greatly exceeds what the system expects as a > max total swap helps to bring the OOM issue under control. > The swap partitions at my immediate disposal are 1 GB USB flash 1 GB microSD flash 2 GB microSD flash 3 GB USB mechanical What combination is apt to be most informative? My original intent was to use 1 GB USB flash plus 1 GB microSD flash in hopes of a speed gain from interleaving, but maybe that's no longer realistic. Anything over 3 GB total causes the "too much swap" warning and I've never observed more than about 1.2 GB of swap in use. > I think the state of things is such that if you use up the > max usable swap space on the first swap device, only that > swap device well ever be used. I do not believe there is > any attempts what so ever to split the allocation up so > that you use the first fraction of each device. > Swap usage seem to be spread among active partitions, though how they're weighted is unclear to me. In days of yore there was a little note about "interleaved" in swapinfo reports, but I don't recall seeing that for a loong time. Maybe that feature has gone away..... Thanks for reading, bob prohaska
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180614175622.GC35161>