FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-11-2010, 05:23 PM
"Robert G. (Doc) Savage"
 
Default Q about swap size

On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 09:01 -0700, JD wrote:
> On 07/11/2010 09:10 AM, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
> > I've been running Fedora on my old Thinkpad A22p (P-III/M w/512MB)
> With only half a gig of ram, you will end up thrashing like crazy.
> Of course you will have a high load factor.
> How about putting in it the maximum amount of ram the notebook can handle.
> Ram is cheap now!

JD,

I'd love to, but the operative word in my msg was "old". The memory
sockets in the A22p support only 256MB SODIMMs. 512MB was huge in those
days.

Since sending my last message I discovered that F13, like earlier
versions, insists on installing the beagle indexer. That's a serious
performance killer on an old machine. Removing beagle, beagle-gnome, and
beagle-evolution has provided some relief, but there's something else
still feeding on my system. I'm looking for other CPU/RAM hungry
services I don't need. Like beagle, they may not be controlled by
chkconfig.

--Doc Savage
Fairview Heights, IL

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 07-11-2010, 05:42 PM
JD
 
Default Q about swap size

On 07/11/2010 10:23 AM, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 09:01 -0700, JD wrote:
>> On 07/11/2010 09:10 AM, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
>>> I've been running Fedora on my old Thinkpad A22p (P-III/M w/512MB)
>> With only half a gig of ram, you will end up thrashing like crazy.
>> Of course you will have a high load factor.
>> How about putting in it the maximum amount of ram the notebook can handle.
>> Ram is cheap now!
> JD,
>
> I'd love to, but the operative word in my msg was "old". The memory
> sockets in the A22p support only 256MB SODIMMs. 512MB was huge in those
> days.
>
> Since sending my last message I discovered that F13, like earlier
> versions, insists on installing the beagle indexer. That's a serious
> performance killer on an old machine. Removing beagle, beagle-gnome, and
> beagle-evolution has provided some relief, but there's something else
> still feeding on my system. I'm looking for other CPU/RAM hungry
> services I don't need. Like beagle, they may not be controlled by
> chkconfig.
>
> --Doc Savage
> Fairview Heights, IL
>
After you start top,
the command P (upper case) shows top cpu hogs.
Look under the tab %CPU
the command M shows top memory hogs.
Memory hogs usually have a very high resident set of pages.

You will have to be careful what you remove though

Good luck.

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 07-11-2010, 06:38 PM
JB
 
Default Q about swap size

Robert G. (Doc) Savage <dsavage <at> peaknet.net> writes:

>
> ...
> top - 10:43:15 up 2 days, 6 min,* 5 users,* load average: 8.62, 6.84, 6.26
> Tasks: 244 total,** 7 running, 237 sleeping,** 0 stopped,** 0 zombie
> Cpu(s): 60.7%us, 23.5%sy,* 9.2%ni,* 0.0%id,* 0.0%wa,* 5.4%hi,* 1.3%si,* 0.0%st
> Mem:*** 509800k total,** 502624k used,**** 7176k free,*** 16280k buffers
> Swap:* 1048568k total,** 317372k used,** 731196k free,** 101944k cached
>
>
> This indicates only about 30% of my 1GB swap is being used. Would increasing
that to 2GB have any affect on the load average performance?--Doc Savage*
Fairview Heights, IL
>
Hi,
whoul you plase take a look at 'top' output (Ctl-M sorted by memory use) and
share with us the system lines plus following 10 lines. Note that the display
may may flactuate so wait a while to understand what is really happening and
then capture the output for us.

As a general rule, your cache size should have:
RAM size plus 20%
This is due to "save to cache" requirement for hibernation.
JB






--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 07-11-2010, 07:01 PM
Konstantin Svist
 
Default Q about swap size

On 07/11/2010 09:10 AM, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:



I've been running Fedora on my old Thinkpad A22p (P-III/M
w/512MB) since FC4 or before, upgrading from one version to the
next using the same partition sizes. For F13 I increased the
size of /boot, but kept swap at 1GB:

# fdisk -l /dev/sda

Disk /dev/sda: 120.0 GB, 120034123776 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 14593 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x000304c6

** Device Boot***** Start******** End***** Blocks** Id* System
/dev/sda1** *********** 1********* 64***** 512000** 83* Linux
Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
/dev/sda2************* 64****** 14463** 115658752** 83* Linux
/dev/sda3********** 14463****** 14594**** 1048576** 82* Linux swap / Solaris


The last couple of releases have run agonizingly slowly with
very high load averages (between 2.x and 10.x).



I just read http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/13/html/Installation_Guide/s2-diskpartrecommend-x86.html

which recommends a minimum of 2GB swap size for memory sizes
up to 4GB. I've been using 2x RAM for swap size ever since the
2.6 kernel was introduced. At the moment (running 'yumex') 'top'
indicates:

top - 10:43:15 up 2 days, 6 min,* 5 users,* load average: 8.62, 6.84, 6.26
Tasks: 244 total,** 7 running, 237 sleeping,** 0 stopped,** 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 60.7%us, 23.5%sy,* 9.2%ni,* 0.0%id,* 0.0%wa,* 5.4%hi,* 1.3%si,* 0.0%st
Mem:*** 509800k total,** 502624k used,**** 7176k free,*** 16280k buffers
Swap:* 1048568k total,** 317372k used,** 731196k free,** 101944k cached


This indicates only about 30% of my 1GB swap is being used.
Would increasing that to 2GB have any affect on the load average
performance?



--Doc Savage

* Fairview Heights, IL





Don't run Gnome/KDE desktops - they're memory hogs. Instead, try
XFCE - it's much lighter and faster (fewer features, though).

You have ~800MB of virtual memory used (mem used+swap used) with
nothing but yumex.

I have Thunderbird and Firefox and several small programs open; my
virt memory usage is at ~600MB. The rest of my 2G is buffers and
caches.



Mem:** 2061244k total,* 1999948k used,*** 61296k free,** 303296k
buffers

Swap:******* 0k total,******* 0k used,******* 0k free,** 917156k
cached





As far as swap, keep it at 1G, it's a reasonable setting with your
hardware.

With my 2G RAM, I have the swap partition at 2G, but keep it turned
off most of the time -- the programs I open rarely, if ever, fill up
the 2G and it's faster to not use the swap when you don't need it.
But that's just me, not a recommendation of any kind







--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 07-11-2010, 07:29 PM
JB
 
Default Q about swap size

JB <jurek.bajor <at> gmail.com> writes:

> ...
> top - 10:43:15 up 2 days, 6 min, 5 users, load average: 8.62, 6.84, 6.26
> Tasks: 244 total, 7 running, 237 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> Cpu(s): 60.7%us, 23.5%sy, 9.2%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 5.4%hi, 1.3%si, 0.0%st
> Mem: 509800k total, 502624k used, 7176k free, 16280k buffers
> Swap: 1048568k total, 317372k used, 731196k free, 101944k cached
>
>
> This indicates only about 30% of my 1GB swap is being used. Would increasing
that to 2GB have any affect on the load average performance?--Doc Savage
Fairview Heights, IL
>
Hi,
Please disregard my previous message - it has some typos (high temps here ).

Would you please take a look at 'top' output (Ctl-M - sorted by memory use)
and share with us the system lines plus following 10 lines. Note that
the display may fluctuate, so wait for a while to understand what is really
happening and then capture the output for us.

As a general rule, your min swap size should be:
RAM size plus 20%
This is due to "save to swap" requirement for hibernation.
JB





--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 07-11-2010, 07:51 PM
JD
 
Default Q about swap size

On 07/11/2010 12:29 PM, JB wrote:
> JB<jurek.bajor<at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> ...
>> top - 10:43:15 up 2 days, 6 min, 5 users, load average: 8.62, 6.84, 6.26
>> Tasks: 244 total, 7 running, 237 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
>> Cpu(s): 60.7%us, 23.5%sy, 9.2%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 5.4%hi, 1.3%si, 0.0%st
>> Mem: 509800k total, 502624k used, 7176k free, 16280k buffers
>> Swap: 1048568k total, 317372k used, 731196k free, 101944k cached
>>
>>
>> This indicates only about 30% of my 1GB swap is being used. Would increasing
> that to 2GB have any affect on the load average performance?--Doc Savage
> Fairview Heights, IL
> Hi,
> Please disregard my previous message - it has some typos (high temps here ).
>
> Would you please take a look at 'top' output (Ctl-M - sorted by memory use)
> and share with us the system lines plus following 10 lines. Note that
> the display may fluctuate, so wait for a while to understand what is really
> happening and then capture the output for us.
>
> As a general rule, your min swap size should be:
> RAM size plus 20%
> This is due to "save to swap" requirement for hibernation.
> JB
>
>
>
>
>
But for running many apps that use a large dataset, you want at least 2X
physical ram of swap space -
albeit, running such a huge app on systems that are starved for PHYSICAL
RAM can lead to extremely poor
performance at the least - and the system with thrash from excessive
page-in's and page-out's and full tilt
swap-in's and swap-out's. AT the worst, the system will lock up.

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 07-11-2010, 08:25 PM
Bill Davidsen
 
Default Q about swap size

Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 09:01 -0700, JD wrote:
>> On 07/11/2010 09:10 AM, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
>>> I've been running Fedora on my old Thinkpad A22p (P-III/M w/512MB)
>> With only half a gig of ram, you will end up thrashing like crazy.
>> Of course you will have a high load factor.
>> How about putting in it the maximum amount of ram the notebook can handle.
>> Ram is cheap now!
>
> JD,
>
> I'd love to, but the operative word in my msg was "old". The memory
> sockets in the A22p support only 256MB SODIMMs. 512MB was huge in those
> days.
>
> Since sending my last message I discovered that F13, like earlier
> versions, insists on installing the beagle indexer. That's a serious
> performance killer on an old machine. Removing beagle, beagle-gnome, and
> beagle-evolution has provided some relief, but there's something else
> still feeding on my system. I'm looking for other CPU/RAM hungry
> services I don't need. Like beagle, they may not be controlled by
> chkconfig.
>
If you are out of CPU rather than memory, and that looks likely, there's one
more thing you can do to find the culprit. Install the system accounting
package, and run that for a while. You will then be able to generate a report of
the CPU and memory usage of processes as they terminate. At the least you will
have to do a sort and find the processes with high CPU usage overall (total
CPU-sec), and you might want to look for processes which use a high percentage
of CPU as well.

Once you can see where the CPU is going you can address the problem. That may
mean tuning, it may mean installing puppy linux, or tiny core linux, or deciding
that you like Fedora well enough to live with the issue.

Sitting and observing top may give you an answer, or you might see false
positives instead. Accounting can be turned on and off, so you can only try it
when you think you have the problem.

I run several VMs with less memory than that and they run okay, so depending on
what you are doing I don't think the memory is your problem.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 07-11-2010, 10:42 PM
Robert Myers
 
Default Q about swap size

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Konstantin Svist <fry.kun@gmail.com> wrote:










Don't run Gnome/KDE desktops - they're memory hogs. Instead, try
XFCE - it's much lighter and faster (fewer features, though).

Just shows how much the world of Linux has changed that it took so long for that advice to appear. *"Run a lightweight desktop" used to be (as I remember it) almost the first response to a complaint about overloaded hardware.

It's interesting that Linux has followed in the path of Wintel, almost forcing hardware upgrades with new OS releases. *Just as in the "old" days, though, relief is almost always available for Linux users without taking drastic measures, unless you are just totally in love with all the gadgetry of Gnome/KDE, in which case you have to fall out of love with your old hardware.

Robert.

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 07-11-2010, 10:57 PM
JD
 
Default Q about swap size

On 07/11/2010 03:42 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Konstantin Svist <fry.kun@gmail.com
> <mailto:fry.kun@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Don't run Gnome/KDE desktops - they're memory hogs. Instead, try
> XFCE - it's much lighter and faster (fewer features, though).
>
>
> Just shows how much the world of Linux has changed that it took so
> long for that advice to appear. "Run a lightweight desktop" used to
> be (as I remember it) almost the first response to a complaint about
> overloaded hardware.
>
> It's interesting that Linux has followed in the path of Wintel, almost
> forcing hardware upgrades with new OS releases. Just as in the "old"
> days, though, relief is almost always available for Linux users
> without taking drastic measures, unless you are just totally in love
> with all the gadgetry of Gnome/KDE, in which case you have to fall out
> of love with your old hardware.
>
> Robert.
>
Too True Robert!!
The UI interface's "code distance" from user to hardware has increased
tremendously, and much of the UI is written in scripts which need to be
interpreted
by yet another program - which inter itself might turn out to be yet
another script.
Also, the stack of libraries is increasing also when it comes to
desktops and UI's.

But this is the nature of the beast - ease of development and deployment vs.
speed and efficiency of the product.
The former has won.

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 07-11-2010, 11:56 PM
birger
 
Default Q about swap size

On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 11:10 -0500, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
> top - 10:43:15 up 2 days, 6 min, 5 users, load average: 8.62, 6.84, 6.26
> Tasks: 244 total, 7 running, 237 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> Cpu(s): 60.7%us, 23.5%sy, 9.2%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 5.4%hi, 1.3%si, 0.0%st
> Mem: 509800k total, 502624k used, 7176k free, 16280k buffers
> Swap: 1048568k total, 317372k used, 731196k free, 101944k cached

You most certainly have something bogging down the system.

top - 01:45:28 up 2 days, 2:06, 2 users, load average: 0.34, 0.69,
1.01
Tasks: 163 total, 1 running, 162 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 8.6%us, 5.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 86.0%id, 0.3%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
0.0%st
Mem: 509908k total, 493208k used, 16700k free, 6464k buffers
Swap: 2097144k total, 108544k used, 1988600k free, 128324k cached

This is my Intel P4 system with 512MB RAM. I have tweaked Gnome a bit to
make it leaner, like no gradients on window frames and so on. Nothing
that you would really notice. I now have a terminal window, Evolution
and Firefow (2 windows, >10 tabs) up and running. As you can see from
the numbers, my system runs this load just fine.

I'm low on buffers compared to you even if I have more available memory.
Does that mean you have some process doing I/O?

With a load average of 8 something must be running in the background. I
don't think your slower CPU can take the blame for so many processes
stacking up. I have a Compaq Armada M300 or something like that in a
closet. It has F12 or F13 installed, and ran spotify in wine without
dropouts. Using Gnome.

Linux still rocks on old equipment once you disable the cpu and memory
hogs. I don't really see the need for killing gnome.

--
birger


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:42 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org