[ale] adding swap? was "that same darn NFS problem SOLVED"

[ChangingLINKS.com]

Exactly. I do have a machine only for the LINKER process. (and a little NFS).

Drew

On Monday 17 February 2003 4:13 pm, Geoffrey wrote:
> What you need is a totally separate machine for your LINKER process.
> 
> ChangingLINKS.com wrote:
> > That is a great idea! My server gets crushed by a program that I call 
LINKER.
> > LINKER makes multi-threaded connections to the Internet and collects data. 
Of 
> > course, while it is collecting the data, some of the web sites that it 
> > collects data have connection errors.
> > 
> > I had two programmers look at the software, and it seems to bottleneck at 
the 
> > nic card. I can open another session and run as many as 2 more instances 
of 
> > the program - but usually the server gets sluggish (insofar as gettting 
> > results) at 2 instances.
> > 
> > While that is going on, I can open 2 more instances on two more servers, 
and 
> > all of them seem to run at full speed - so it doesn't seem to be a data 
> > transfer problem.
> > 
> > This is why I was adding 2 nics to the server. This is also why I think it 
may 
> > be a good idea to double my swap?
> > 
> > How do I run a test to see whether more swap is needed?
> > 
> > I have 512RAM, and 1019 swap(I think).
> > 
> > 
> > Drew
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Monday 17 February 2003 1:38 pm, Michael D. Hirsch wrote:
> > 
> >>On Monday 17 February 2003 02:30 pm, Chris Ricker wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>With a 2.4.x kernel and RAM <=4G swap=2xRAM
> >>>
> >>>That's not necessary. There was a bug in early 2.4.x that required
> >>>swap=2xRAM for decent performance, but that's long since been fixed...
> >>>
> >>>You need enough swap to hold your working set. That could be anything
> >>>from no swap to gigabytes, depending on what you do on that system....
> >>
> >>Right, but the rational I heard is 
> >>
> >>1.  Having swap doesn't hurt
> >>2.  Unless you have so many processes and so much swap space that you get 
> >>swap bound
> >>3. swap = 2 x RAM is a reasonable heuristic.  If you use much more than 
> >>that you are probably swap bound, but up to that amount could really 
> >>happen without getting swap bound.
> >>
> >>Obviously one can create loads that would be usable with more than that 
> >>much swap in use.  One could also create loads that are unusable with less 
> >>than that much in use.  It is just a rough guess that often works okay, 
> >>and few of us have the time or ability to really do an analysis of our 
> >>swap needs.
> >>
> >>Michael
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Ale mailing list
> >>Ale at ale.org
> >>http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at 3times25.net
> 
> The latest, most widespread virus?  Microsoft end user agreement.
> Think about it...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> 
> 

-- 
Wishing you Happiness, Joy and Laughter,
Drew Brown
http://www.ChangingLINKS.com
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale