On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 12:36 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
On 7/21/06, William L. Maltby BillsCentOS@triad.rr.com wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 12:10 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
On 7/21/06, Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com wrote:
Larry Vaden spake the following on 7/21/2006 8:05 AM:
<snip><snip>
Here's what got my curiosity up (and wondering why the swap'd item(s) didn't eventually expire); the first machine is running sendmail, the others are running postfix.
Mem: 1025076k total, 602508k used, 422568k free, 42204k buffers Swap: 2031608k total, 600k used, 2031008k free, 506496k cached
Mem: 1295916k total, 719596k used, 576320k free, 70192k buffers Swap: 2031608k total, 144k used, 2031464k free, 441984k cached
<snip similar>
In that thread was mentioned a "feature" that came to be considered a bug. That's why U4 is supposed to remove it. That *maight* affect what we are seeing. You can reduce even that by using the "swappiness" thing and considering the other actions mentioned in that thread.
What you show is *not* a problem, IMO, but an irritation. I believe the memory manager just dumps some *really* inactive pages out so that buffers and cache (which should be *very* active areas) can get more memory.
<straight face> Makes since: why maintain an error trapping routine in memory at the expense of buffers and/or cache? We *know* there are no bugs that need trapping, right? </straight face>
rgds/ldv _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos