From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <0e0746b0f30e6eaa7de413ef337c7f16@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:54:42 -0500
From: quanstro@quanstro.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Swap considered harmful (Sorry)
In-Reply-To: <9f3897940607140410o3f0e87b3vbebc16f93383ff15@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7ee8c8f0-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri Jul 14 06:11:12 CDT 2006, pawel.lasek@gmail.com wrote:
> And swap had given me enough to not remove it - and on linux,
> strangely, even on systems with godlike amounts of memory, small swap
> was found to be a good choice (Something about caching/mapping and so
> on).

it used to be solaris (i don't know if this is still the case) would
evict pages to swap even when used + cache << phys memory.
i did quite a bit of performance work on solaris, and found i couldn't
use more than a fraction of available memory.  we moved the same
applications to aix and got much better performance with the same amount
of physical memory, as we were memory bound.

- erik