From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <9f3897940607141240k6693746dh3752e66141993e56@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:40:29 +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: <0e0746b0f30e6eaa7de413ef337c7f16@quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <9f3897940607140410o3f0e87b3vbebc16f93383ff15@mail.gmail.com> <0e0746b0f30e6eaa7de413ef337c7f16@quanstro.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7fdcb546-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 7/14/06, quanstro@quanstro.net wrote: > 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. IIRC, the performance increase from swap on linux is in IO code, which used swap as a sort of organized buffer for apps or something like it, while giving more core to apps. Not sure about this, I'd have to check archives for that. It was in a discussion about whether prepare swap when you have such amounts of memory as today :) > - erik > -- Paul Lasek