Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:15:26 +0400 (MSD) From: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org>, FreeBSD Hackers List <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: swap & huge mem systems Message-ID: <20020709161044.C77578-100000@woozle.rinet.ru> In-Reply-To: <20020709091803.GA8427@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Erik Trulsson wrote: ET> > BTW, is it safe to create _interleaved_ swap totally sized slightly above ET> > the amount of physical RAM? I mean, is core writer interleve-aware, or ET> > does it need the first swap partiton large enough? ET> ET> The coredumping code does not know about interleaved swap. It just uses ET> a single swap partition which must be large enough. ET> Read the dumpon(8) manpage for more information. Yeah, I see (overlooked this somehow, sorry for the dumb question ;) So, if someone wants to get really quick swap and allocates 4 partitions on 4 drives *AND* also wand to get crashdumps, (s)he has to do this suboptimally (either allocate 1st more sized than phys RAM and other much smaller, or allocate approx 4 x phys RAM)? The, the question: which technique is preferrable? Sidenote: Yes, I'm aware that in "normal case" machine should not swap at all, but consider something like multi-user machine which is *normally* does not swap but need to adopt high peaks in load. Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, DM268-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020709161044.C77578-100000>