On Wed, 28 May 2014 12:37:48 -0700, Aaditya Gavandalkar said: > So considering all these points, is it of any advantage to save on swapping > time while having all those extra overheads. The short answer is "it depends". The long answer is "it depends". Do you have actual numbers that show a saving in swapping time? If so, how much of a reduction? Is there a difference if you're only slightly into swap (maybe 50M or so), or heavily into swap (multiple gigabytes) but most swap-resident pages are old and inactive (for instance, your Firefox image when you come in in the morning, after it's been forced out to swap by a 2AM backup), or heavily into swap and high activity (in other words, if your system is thrashing)? Which is more important, saving on swapping time because you have an elapsed-time issue (for instance, a backup service that isn't making an allotted time window), or the overhead (if your server is already running at 90% CPU)? And the first question that my boss is going to ask me in this situation is "Why doesn't a server that's running a critical application have enough RAM installed so that you don't ever hit swap in the first place?" (You want to see painful? An SGI UV system that has 2.7T of RAM (*not* a typo) and it's swapping. Ouch doesn't begin to describe it...)
Attachment:
pgppF4c82fvnb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
