From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 2 21:48:50 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47258106568D for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 21:48:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsdlilly@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yw0-f197.google.com (mail-yw0-f197.google.com [209.85.211.197]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A3C8FC17 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 21:48:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f197.google.com with SMTP id 35so3748385ywh.7 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:48:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=PdOT2FAd9G90yNF//hh1qYigIRd1fgnfa1Yx3c3aeaU=; b=P+2dogzS08+ViM3R/AFXz6hycapgIQ2oLWAJkTIUe09LNzjNNJ9l+kP8jRu3obiSxG VvD9rkXq9VYAClAAe/gTxlg7KQRZ8glf+0qOxqUY0lFaRUtzoTrXuAHWyepT+ZBMsuNR 8Ufeo9psLSVkTJwbowSMFbjxgooq1kiFh0/HQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=LvYF7602tXOXetAlvq2DSrlSMGL+eDogIAePy9AH2WZ+fbuZBG+oWhsIk+GDhZp4wM YmRfL3MSPpntvD5vrz93hI0PEB8sq5FvArILwqw3FmjzftbSRiQxiDXlghhyHIcqtFl/ vsJBKAe0+y/x+IZdO+yw3SFulsU0VcB2Dl0Og= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.180.33 with SMTP id h33mr3437422anp.155.1254520129546; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:48:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20091001115823.0891f9e2.wmoran@potentialtech.com> References: <176FD00A-5791-4D3E-B7F3-D5F0A0AE2037@todoo.biz> <20091001073919.9e05d056.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <20091001154345.GN29215@dan.emsphone.com> <20091001115823.0891f9e2.wmoran@potentialtech.com> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 14:48:49 -0700 Message-ID: From: mojo fms To: FreeBSD Questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: Swap and memory optimization 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: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:48:50 -0000 I would just bump the ram to 2gigs or 4 if it supports it and call it good. You should be fine. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Dan Nelson : > > > In the last episode (Oct 01), Bill Moran said: > > > bsd wrote: > > > > I have a FBSD 6.4p7 box that I use as a mail server - 1Go RAM - RAID1 > > > > Works quite well. > > > > > > > > As I plan to put 100 more mail accounts soon on the server I was > > > > wondering if the memory & swap was ok on the server considering these > > > > figures: > > > > > > > > last pid: 18956; load averages: 0.04, 0.11, 0.05 up 19+08:36:23 > 09:53:38 > > > > 125 processes: 1 running, 124 sleeping > > > > CPU: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 1.5% system, 0.4% interrupt, 98.1% > idle > > > > Mem: 499M Active, 70M Inact, 362M Wired, 41M Cache, 111M Buf, 20M > Free > > > > Swap: 2000M Total, 160M Used, 1840M Free, 8% Inuse > > > > > > > > Though It looks good to me - the server swaps a bit (between 8 to > 14%) > > > > and there is not much memory left. > > > > > > Looks like the server would run more smoothly with a bit more RAM. At > > > least an additional 256M, I would think, but considering the price of > RAM, > > > you might as well just up it to 2G. > > > > The amount of used swap is much less important than whether you are > actively > > swapping (if there are In/Out values on the Swap line in top, or if > "vmstat > > 1" shows nonzero values in the pi/po columns). 160MB of used swap is > fine > > if it's just unused daemons (getty, idle webserver, etc). More memory > can > > never hurt, but it doesn't seem like it's urgently needed here. > > I don't know about that, Dan. Especially considering it's a mail server > he's talking about, there's no RAM left for disk cache on that machine. > > We've seen performance gains on our mail server by putting obscene > amounts of RAM into it. After a bit of use, FreeBSD ends up having 6.5G > of inactive RAM, which I assume is cache of mailboxes. The result is that > while watching gstat, the amount of disk reads is very low (since a lot > of data is already in RAM) and the IO is available to do fast writes when > new mail comes in. > > -- > Bill Moran > http://www.potentialtech.com > http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Who knew