Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 12:56:25 -0400 (EDT) From: -Vince- <vince@penzance.econ.yale.edu> To: Brian Gottlieb <brian@arl.wustl.edu> Cc: Gary Palmer <gary@palmer.demon.co.uk>, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upgrade to my machine Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.950827125342.12378B-100000@penzance.econ.yale.edu> In-Reply-To: <9508241430.AA00576@beru.wustl.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 24 Aug 1995, Brian Gottlieb wrote: > > -Vince- <vince@penzance.econ.yale.edu> (-Vince-) writes: > > -Vince-> On Wed, 23 Aug 1995, Brian Gottlieb wrote: > >> > >> It all depends on what you're doing with it. In my machine at work I > >> have a 400 meg drive dedicated to swap. The circuit synthesis and > >> simulations we run here need LOTS of memory and swap. The "big" > >> machines in our group have 256M of memory and a 1 Gig swap drive. > > -Vince-> Hmmm, is there like a way to do well with a big swap and > -Vince-> like 16 megs of physical memory? How much physical memory is > -Vince-> on the machine with 400 meg swap? > > Today is a good day to answer this. Last night I got a memory > upgrade. There is now 192M of ram in the machine (I feel like a kid > in a playground..."My machine could beat up your machine" ;) > > When I originally wrote this, I had 64M RAM. But the synthesiser > swapped too much and took way to long to run on here. With more > memory, it swapped less and ran much faster. I don't remember the > numbers, but it was very significant. A Sparc 5 with 192M RAM was > keeping up with a Sparc 10 with 128M. One factor we probably didn't > consider was that the 10 may have had a faster disk on it. Hmmm, how does a FreeBSD box match up to a Sparc though? > I'm no expert on things, but I think there is a point where you may > get diminishing returns on having lots of swap. On the other hand, I > have 16 Megs RAM in my freebsd machine and 32 megs of swap, and I have > run out of memory a few times. More swap would probably help. But > perhaps if I got my swap too big, it may become less efficient since I > could run more programs, but it would spend more time swapping. I guess so but physical ram is expensive while swap is cheap so like isn't there a point where you can just put a number for the physical memory and just use swap the rest of the way and it will work fine? > I don't know. To tell the truth, the 400 Megs of swap on here > probably rarely gets filled up, since I typically ran my simulations > elsewhere. But I know that the Sparc 10 in the office upstairs was > swapping like mad when I ran stuff on it (I could almost hear the > drive down here ;). Really? I always thought SUN's were quiet ;) > Hmm...long post. So the answer is...I have no clue ;) Cheers, -Vince- vince@kbrown.oldcampus.yale.edu - GUS Mailing Lists Admin UCLA Physics/Electrical Engineering - UC Berkeley Fall '95 SysAdmin bigbang.HIP.Berkeley.EDU - Running FreeBSD, Real UN*X for Free! Chabot Observatory & Science Center
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.91.950827125342.12378B-100000>