Mem: 2075040k total, 1331452k used, 743588k free, 50896k buffers Swap: 2031608k total, 144k used, 2031464k free, 1191532k cached
SunFire X2100 running Centos 4.3.
Linux maytag1.texoma.net 2.6.9-34.0.2.EL #1 Fri Jul 7 19:24:57 CDT 2006 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
rgds/ldv
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 10:05 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
Mem: 2075040k total, 1331452k used, 743588k free, 50896k buffers Swap: 2031608k total, 144k used, 2031464k free, 1191532k cached
SunFire X2100 running Centos 4.3.
Linux maytag1.texoma.net 2.6.9-34.0.2.EL #1 Fri Jul 7 19:24:57 CDT 2006 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
To answer your question: because it is there! ;-) And it can!
Seriously, a recent thread involving this is in the archives. Short ans: "swappiness" parameter can be used to reduce it and there is a "bug" that disappears with U4 (IIRC). Also, some config settings can reduce it.
Now we have two threads on it. >:-)
rgds/ldv
<snip sig stuff>
On 7/21/06, William L. Maltby BillsCentOS@triad.rr.com wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 10:05 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
Mem: 2075040k total, 1331452k used, 743588k free, 50896k buffers Swap: 2031608k total, 144k used, 2031464k free, 1191532k cached
SunFire X2100 running Centos 4.3.
Linux maytag1.texoma.net 2.6.9-34.0.2.EL #1 Fri Jul 7 19:24:57 CDT 2006 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
To answer your question: because it is there! ;-) And it can!
Seriously, a recent thread involving this is in the archives. Short ans: "swappiness" parameter can be used to reduce it and there is a "bug" that disappears with U4 (IIRC). Also, some config settings can reduce it.
Now we have two threads on it. >:-)
<humor> So, how many threads before it can go in the faq? </humor>
Seriously, did I miss it or is Centos@centos.org not covered by Google groups?
If not covered by Google groups, why (or more positively, can we change that)?
rgds/ldv
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 10:52 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
On 7/21/06, William L. Maltby BillsCentOS@triad.rr.com wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 10:05 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
<snip>
To answer your question: because it is there! ;-) And it can!
Seriously, a recent thread involving this is in the archives. Short ans: "swappiness" parameter can be used to reduce it and there is a "bug" that disappears with U4 (IIRC). Also, some config settings can reduce it.
Now we have two threads on it. >:-)
<humor> So, how many threads before it can go in the faq? </humor>
Got me! I'm just a TDU (Typical Dumb User)!
Seriously, did I miss it or is Centos@centos.org not covered by Google groups?
I recall someone posted a way *other* than what I do to find it, but I can't remember it (and never wanted to become a Google expert either).
*BUT* what I use is the "site:centos" as a parameter (for me, usually in advanced search, but I guess it works normally too).
Someday I'll need to look that up. But I'm afraid of the number of hits I'll get, even within the list, on "Google"! =>:-O
If not covered by Google groups, why (or more positively, can we change that)?
IUC, that would be the ref I mentioned that I can't remember? *sigh*
They say your memory's the 2nd thing to go!
rgds/ldv
<snip sig stuff>
HTH
On 7/21/06, William L. Maltby BillsCentOS@triad.rr.com wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 10:52 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
On 7/21/06, William L. Maltby BillsCentOS@triad.rr.com wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 10:05 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
<snip>
To answer your question: because it is there! ;-) And it can!
Seriously, a recent thread involving this is in the archives. Short ans: "swappiness" parameter can be used to reduce it and there is a "bug" that disappears with U4 (IIRC). Also, some config settings can reduce it.
Now we have two threads on it. >:-)
<humor> So, how many threads before it can go in the faq? </humor>
Got me! I'm just a TDU (Typical Dumb User)!
Seriously, did I miss it or is Centos@centos.org not covered by Google groups?
I recall someone posted a way *other* than what I do to find it, but I can't remember it (and never wanted to become a Google expert either).
*BUT* what I use is the "site:centos" as a parameter (for me, usually in advanced search, but I guess it works normally too).
Someday I'll need to look that up. But I'm afraid of the number of hits I'll get, even within the list, on "Google"! =>:-O
If not covered by Google groups, why (or more positively, can we change that)?
IUC, that would be the ref I mentioned that I can't remember? *sigh*
They say your memory's the 2nd thing to go!
I can't seem to recollect the exact order, but please excuse me if I am foreshadowing too much :)
Is triad Research Triangle Park?
rgds/ldv
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 11:09 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
On 7/21/06, William L. Maltby BillsCentOS@triad.rr.com wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 10:52 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
On 7/21/06, William L. Maltby BillsCentOS@triad.rr.com wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 10:05 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
<snip>
They say your memory's the 2nd thing to go!
I can't seem to recollect the exact order, but please excuse me if I am foreshadowing too much :)
Is triad Research Triangle Park?
Naw, that's Greensboro/High Point/Winston-Salem. You're thinking of the "Triangle" of Raleigh, Durham,... not Cary, but can't remember the third (Chapel Hill?). BTW, CARY := Containment Area for Relocated Yankees! ;-)
<snip sig stuff>
On 7/21/06, William L. Maltby BillsCentOS@triad.rr.com wrote:
Is triad Research Triangle Park?
Naw, that's Greensboro/High Point/Winston-Salem. You're thinking of the "Triangle" of Raleigh, Durham,... not Cary, but can't remember the third (Chapel Hill?). BTW, CARY := Containment Area for Relocated Yankees! ;-)
Great golf in NC; while on a golf course in Durham about 5 years ago, queued up at a par 3, I heard a federal judge from Knoxville say "Lawyers improve their lies everyday" and he followed suit on almost every play.
rgds/ldv
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 11:31 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
On 7/21/06, William L. Maltby BillsCentOS@triad.rr.com wrote:
<snip>
Great golf in NC; while on a golf course in Durham about 5 years ago, queued up at a par 3, I heard a federal judge from Knoxville say "Lawyers improve their lies everyday" and he followed suit on almost every play.
LOL!
When attys. have a convention at the beach, the life guards have to be especially alert for shark-infested waters! Birds of a feather and all that!
rgds/ldv
<snip sig stuff>
<humor> So, how many threads before it can go in the faq? </humor>
It'll be there shortly after the whole world peace thing is solved for good. (It's fixed in update 4.. no need for a faq as it'll be obsolete very soon).
Seriously, did I miss it or is Centos@centos.org not covered by Google groups? If not covered by Google groups, why (or more positively, can we change that)?
google query-> site:lists.centos.org <search criteria>
or is that not good enough?
On 7/21/06, Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com wrote:
<humor> So, how many threads before it can go in the faq? </humor>
It'll be there shortly after the whole world peace thing is solved for good. (It's fixed in update 4.. no need for a faq as it'll be obsolete very soon).
Seriously, did I miss it or is Centos@centos.org not covered by Google groups? If not covered by Google groups, why (or more positively, can we change that)?
google query-> site:lists.centos.org <search criteria>
or is that not good enough?
Thanks for the U4 info.
That Google query is a fine suggestion. Sometimes I just wish there was more uniformity; what works for one list doesn't necessarily work for another list. e.g., IIRC site:postfix.org won't help you with postfix-devel and postfix-users, so your memory (and consequently productivity) is taxed with several swiss army knives rather than one scalpel.
OTOH, Google days are much more productive than pre-Google days.
rgds/ldv
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 at 10:52am, Larry Vaden wrote
Seriously, did I miss it or is Centos@centos.org not covered by Google groups?
If not covered by Google groups, why (or more positively, can we change that)?
Google groups archives Usenet, which a mailing list is not. As others have pointed out, Google web search can be pointed at the list archives.
On 7/21/06, Joshua Baker-LePain jlb17@duke.edu wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 at 10:52am, Larry Vaden wrote
Seriously, did I miss it or is Centos@centos.org not covered by Google groups?
If not covered by Google groups, why (or more positively, can we change that)?
Google groups archives Usenet, which a mailing list is not. As others have pointed out, Google web search can be pointed at the list archives.
-- Joshua Baker-LePain Department of Biomedical Engineering Duke University
Because I've benefitted tremendously from health care at DUMC, I'm reluctant to disagree, but will point out for another list I follow closely:
http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?lnk=nhpsfg&hl=en&q=postfix-users&qt_s=Search+for+a+group
list.postfix.users - Show matching messages from this group Language: English High activity, 219 subscribers, Usenet
mailing.postfix.users - Show matching messages from this group Language: English Low activity, 394 subscribers, Usenet
That's why I asked [if there is a consensus we should try to change that].
rgds/ldv
Larry Vaden spake the following on 7/21/2006 8:05 AM:
Mem: 2075040k total, 1331452k used, 743588k free, 50896k buffers Swap: 2031608k total, 144k used, 2031464k free, 1191532k cached
SunFire X2100 running Centos 4.3.
Linux maytag1.texoma.net 2.6.9-34.0.2.EL #1 Fri Jul 7 19:24:57 CDT 2006 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
rgds/ldv
144k of used swap is minimal. As ling as pages aren't actively swapping in and out, it is no big deal.
On 7/21/06, Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com wrote:
Larry Vaden spake the following on 7/21/2006 8:05 AM:
Mem: 2075040k total, 1331452k used, 743588k free, 50896k buffers Swap: 2031608k total, 144k used, 2031464k free, 1191532k cached
SunFire X2100 running Centos 4.3.
Linux maytag1.texoma.net 2.6.9-34.0.2.EL #1 Fri Jul 7 19:24:57 CDT 2006 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
rgds/ldv
144k of used swap is minimal. As ling as pages aren't actively swapping in and out, it is no big deal.
OK, I agree that where there is smoke there is not always fire, but I still prefer a smoke-free environment.
rgds/ldv
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>
OK, I agree that where there is smoke there is not always fire, but I still prefer a smoke-free environment.
I quit buying last 8/18/05. Had 35 since. Used to be 2+ packs per day. I haven't quit, just decided to smoke less.
When you check out that thread I mentioned, you'll see how. I did *not* use the "swappiness" thingy and I have 8k used ATM. Max I've seen recently is 44K (however updatedb and makewhatis running together will get it to 144M or so on this X workstation).
rgds/ldv
<snip sig stuff>
HTH
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>
OK, I agree that where there is smoke there is not always fire, but I still prefer a smoke-free environment.
I quit buying last 8/18/05. Had 35 since. Used to be 2+ packs per day. I haven't quit, just decided to smoke less.
When you check out that thread I mentioned, you'll see how. I did *not* use the "swappiness" thingy and I have 8k used ATM. Max I've seen recently is 44K (however updatedb and makewhatis running together will get it to 144M or so on this X workstation).
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
Mem: 1295916k total, 707076k used, 588840k free, 127812k buffers Swap: 2031608k total, 144k used, 2031464k free, 327920k cached
Mem: 1295916k total, 604212k used, 691704k free, 91576k buffers Swap: 2031608k total, 144k used, 2031464k free, 159620k cached
Mem: 2075040k total, 1379836k used, 695204k free, 40852k buffers Swap: 2031608k total, 144k used, 2031464k free, 1239196k cached
rgds/ldv
On 7/21/06, Larry Vaden vaden@texoma.net 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>
OK, I agree that where there is smoke there is not always fire, but I still prefer a smoke-free environment.
I quit buying last 8/18/05. Had 35 since. Used to be 2+ packs per day. I haven't quit, just decided to smoke less.
Quit cold turkey 05/19/2005; Plavix is not an antidote for smoking :(
rgds/ldv
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 12:38 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
On 7/21/06, Larry Vaden vaden@texoma.net 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>
Quit cold turkey 05/19/2005; Plavix is not an antidote for smoking :(
Congrats. Keep it up!
<snip sig stuff>
--- Larry Vaden vaden@texoma.net wrote:
On 7/21/06, Larry Vaden vaden@texoma.net 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>
OK, I agree that where there is smoke there is
not always fire, but I
still prefer a smoke-free environment.
I quit buying last 8/18/05. Had 35 since. Used
to be 2+ packs per day. I
haven't quit, just decided to smoke less.
Quit cold turkey 05/19/2005; Plavix is not an antidote for smoking :(
Quit cold turkey 08/28/90 never touched them again!!!
rgds/ldv _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Steven
"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section, it said 'Requires Windows or better'. So I installed Linux."
On 7/21/06, Steven Vishoot sir_funzone@yahoo.com wrote:
Quit cold turkey 08/28/90 never touched them again!!!
Congratulations - I'm sure you realize you are one of the very few who have been able to quit that long.
rgds/ldv
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
Larry Vaden spake the following on 7/21/2006 10:10 AM:
On 7/21/06, Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com wrote:
Larry Vaden spake the following on 7/21/2006 8:05 AM:
Mem: 2075040k total, 1331452k used, 743588k free, 50896k
buffers
Swap: 2031608k total, 144k used, 2031464k free, 1191532k cached
SunFire X2100 running Centos 4.3.
Linux maytag1.texoma.net 2.6.9-34.0.2.EL #1 Fri Jul 7 19:24:57 CDT 2006 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
rgds/ldv
144k of used swap is minimal. As ling as pages aren't actively swapping in and out, it is no big deal.
OK, I agree that where there is smoke there is not always fire, but I still prefer a smoke-free environment.
rgds/ldv
free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 4044784 3895936 148848 0 52400 2152500 -/+ buffers/cache: 1691036 2353748 Swap: 2031608 160 2031448 You see that mine seems to have the same "problem". Although since this machine has been up for a while, it has a lot of buffers filled. But when I run vmstat; vmstat -n 5 procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 1 0 160 63160 45836 2287448 0 0 104 121 3 16 20 3 75 2 2 0 160 61936 45840 2288668 0 0 256 30 1217 12652 27 4 69 0 1 0 160 60192 45868 2290544 0 0 366 26 1249 12876 27 4 68 1 1 0 160 58976 45872 2291764 0 0 256 18 1200 12345 27 4 69 0 2 0 160 57744 45876 2293120 0 0 256 42 1223 13458 27 4 68 0 1 0 160 56472 45912 2294648 0 0 310 102 1232 12667 26 4 70 1 1 0 160 55280 45928 2295584 0 0 206 272 1208 12431 27 3 70 0 1 0 160 54144 45948 2296856 0 0 258 16 1186 12633 27 3 69 0 1 0 160 52648 45956 2298412 0 0 307 55 1222 13441 27 4 69 0
No swapin or swapout
On 7/21/06, Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com wrote:
free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 4044784 3895936 148848 0 52400 2152500 -/+ buffers/cache: 1691036 2353748 Swap: 2031608 160 2031448 You see that mine seems to have the same "problem". Although since this machine has been up for a while, it has a lot of buffers filled. But when I run vmstat;
No swapin or swapout
My situation is that same (static, no swapping).
rgds/ldv
-
Jim Perrin -
Joshua Baker-LePain -
Larry Vaden -
Scott Silva -
Steven Vishoot -
William L. Maltby