From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <9f3897940607140410o3f0e87b3vbebc16f93383ff15@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:10:34 +0200 From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Pawe=C5=82_Lasek?=" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Swap considered harmful (Sorry) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <44B66FCA.3040308@lanl.gov> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7edcbd76-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 7/13/06, quanstro@quanstro.net wrote: > i typically run with 128MB real memory and 750MB of swap *used* > (out of 4G). the oom killer hasn't been up on murder charges on my > machine yet. The only time I had seen OOM-killer running was when I invoked it directly by SysRq combo. I had once reached full memory and swap, but even then OOM-killer didn't run - I am not sure if 2.6.x line didn't changed the default behaviour, as the only think that happened was gcc complaining "Out of Memory" during compilation of Open Office (never more - I have given up and used binaries and OTOH, for my own works I mostly use TeX) and killing itself. 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). And as for Plan9... when you have at most 40 MB, swap is a good idea :) -- Paul Lasek