[ale] Anyone know if this is true?

Rich Faulkner rfaulkner at 34thprs.org
Thu Oct 13 13:14:32 EDT 2011


Noob to Hawk in one easy lesson.  Jump in the pool...down the rabbit
hole with you!


On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 13:07 -0400, Ron Frazier wrote:

> Ahh, very clever.  Hook me in with my own idea.  8-)  I would consider
> it.  I'd also have to consider if I can allocate the 20+ hours it
> would probably take to get ready.  My findings are currently very very
> preliminary.  Also, I'm one of the more newbie Linux users in the
> group.  I'm not sure how qualified I am.  What did you have in mind?
> 
> Ron
> 
> On 10/13/2011 11:51 AM, Jim Kinney wrote: 
> 
> > So can you consider a presentation of your findinds and perhaps some
> > testing?
> > :-)
> > 
> > 
> > On Oct 13, 2011 10:52 AM, "Ron Frazier"
> > <atllinuxenthinfo at c3energy.com> wrote:
> > 
> >         Hi guys,
> >         
> >         This thread has prompted me to do a bit of research to try
> >         to see if I can find a consensus on the swap size issue.  At
> >         the moment, it seems like ask 100 people and get 100
> >         different opinions.  I haven't uncovered enough data to
> >         tabulate and summarize it at this point.  I'm pretty sure my
> >         linux machines have plenty of swap for applications.  I have
> >         8 GB of swap on two machines which have 8 GB of RAM.  If I
> >         look at the system monitor program in Gnome, it looks like
> >         the swap is rarely ever touched.  By the way, having 8 GB of
> >         RAM in a laptop is a nice, new, liberating experience for
> >         me.  It's really nice to be able to open several dozen
> >         browser tabs and a dozen or more applications without the
> >         machine even breathing too hard.  This is my first laptop
> >         capable of that.  I also have 8 GB of swap on a machine with
> >         4 GB of RAM, so it should be sitting pretty, so to speak.  I
> >         haven't found anything that says extra swap is harmful.
> >         What I don't know, is whether the two 8 GB machines would be
> >         able to hibernate (suspend to disk) properly, if the swap is
> >         equal to the RAM.  I may have to increase the swap on those
> >         to 10 GB - 12 GB.  This is not an issue in Windows since it
> >         uses a separate hibernate file.
> >         
> >         In my research, I found this article
> >         ( http://lukasz.szmit.eu/2009/11/compcache-swap-on-linux-desktop.html ).  The article is a bit old, but this talks about a fascinating project called Compcache.  Here's a quote from the page:
> >         
> >         ---> quote on <---
> >         
> >         Compcache is an open source project implementing an
> >         innovative approach to swap. This has been done before, but
> >         not for swap. Users of DOS and early Windows versions will
> >         remember DoubleSpace/DriveSpace, which was used to virtually
> >         expand available disk space, by storing files in a
> >         compressed form. Compcache does exactly that, but for swap,
> >         by creating a new block device in the system which
> >         interfaces with the special compressed memory region in RAM.
> >         On the plus side, Compcache can also be configured to use an
> >         alternative swap device when the RAM swap area is full.
> >         
> >         ---> quote off <---
> >         
> >         I think that is a really cool idea for low resource
> >         machines.  While I don't know if I'll ever use it, since my
> >         modern machines have a decent amount of RAM, it could really
> >         benefit older, smaller machines.  For example, I have an old
> >         IBM Thinkpad with 160 MB (yes MB) of RAM.  I've pretty much
> >         retired the machine.  It does run a GUI based version of
> >         Linux, just barely, but is painfully slow.  The old 300 MHz
> >         processor doesn't help much either.  I think I have an old
> >         version of Lubuntu on it.  Anyway, this type of technology
> >         could give the machine more breathing room by compressing
> >         the memory, so it would be like having 256 MB of RAM.  I
> >         also have an old Toshiba laptop which is topped out at 1 GB
> >         or RAM.  Both Ubuntu 10.04 and Windows XP run pretty well.
> >         However, I could compress 512 MB of RAM and then effectively
> >         have 512 MB or normal RAM and 1 GB of swap.
> >         
> >         Here's the link for the Compcache project:
> >         http://code.google.com/p/compcache/
> >         
> >         Here's an interesting quote from their site: "With compcache
> >         at hypervisor level, we can compress any part of guest
> >         memory transparently."
> >         
> >         Now, while I'll admit I don't understand all the
> >         implications of that statement, it looks like you could
> >         essentially compress all the RAM if running a lightweight
> >         hypervisor and running your OS as a guest.
> >         
> >         The project website also points out that embedded systems
> >         could benefit from the technology, where you have to justify
> >         every chip you put into a device.
> >         
> >         Finally, here is an interesting quote from the original
> >         article:
> >         
> >         ---> quote on <---
> >         
> >         On my desktop, a Dell Precision S390 with 2GB DDR2 RAM and a
> >         Maxtor Diamond Max 9 80GB drive, I am getting the following
> >         hdparm results (average of three runs) for my disk swap, and
> >         my compcache swap:
> >               * Swap on disk: 58MB/s
> >               * Compcache swap: 557MB/s
> >         An order of magnitude better bandwidth at no expense? I like
> >         that.
> >         
> >         ---> quote off <---
> >         
> >         I like that idea too.  I'd like to know what you guys think
> >         of this concept.
> >         
> >         Sincerely,
> >         
> >         Ron
> >         
> >         On 10/13/2011 8:58 AM, Rich Faulkner wrote: 
> >         
> >         > For me depends upon the system as to swap size, but if I
> >         > plan on using hibernation features I have swap just over
> >         > the size of RAM as in 1-1/2 times as the general (old)
> >         > rule that I've followed...generally a couple of gigs for a
> >         > desktop and I leave it at that.  Being as I'm only
> >         > building desktops and laptops lately I'm not speaking to
> >         > servers.  An interesting experiment is to do test installs
> >         > to various system configs and see what a given distro will
> >         > do for a default installation.  I consider this a
> >         > benchmark from the developers on an "ideal" configuration
> >         > given the hardware provided.    RinL
> >         > 
> >         > 
> >         > On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 08:45 -0400, Scott Castaline wrote: 
> >         > 
> >         > > On 10/12/2011 09:40 PM, Tavarvess Ware wrote:
> >         > > >
> >         > > > Scott I read the ram x 2= swap in my Linux classes as well and have 
> >         > > > generally followed that, but with memory soaring as it has lately i am 
> >         > > > starting to rethink that.  A system 48gigs of memory would be 96 in 
> >         > > > swap..... I wonder if te old format has changed and I haven't heard yet.
> >         > > >
> >         > > I only go RAM x 2 = swap for the 1st 2 GB of RAM so 2GB RAM = 4GB swap. 
> >         > >  From there on it's RAM x 1 = swap so 4GB RAM = 6GB swap. So your 48 GB 
> >         > > of RAM = 50GB swap, and yup that's one hell of a lot of swap space.
> >         > > >
> >         > > > On Oct 12, 2011 9:32 PM, "Scott Castaline" <skotchman at gmail.com 
> >         > > > <mailto:skotchman at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >         > > >
> >         > > >     On 10/12/2011 04:14 PM, planas wrote:
> >         > > >     > On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 15:13 -0400, Geoffrey Myers wrote:
> >         > > >     >> 'Just so you all know, when determining how much space to assign to
> >         > > >     >> swap: Swap isn't just used for paging or virtual memory
> >         > > >     management; swap
> >         > > >     >> is also used by power management for suspend-to-disk
> >         > > >     (hibernation). '
> >         > > >     >>
> >         > > >     >> I seriously don't know, so I'm asking.
> >         > > >     >>
> >         > > >     >
> >         > > >     > I have seen that a good swap size is ~1.5x the RAM.
> >         > > >     > --
> >         > > >     > Jay Lozier
> >         > > >     > jslozier at gmail.com <mailto:jslozier at gmail.com>
> >         > > >     >
> >         > > >     >
> >         > > >     >
> >         > > >     I remember from somewhere that upto 2GB use 2.0x RAM above 2GB of
> >         > > >     RAM go
> >         > > >     with 1:1 ratio so 4Gb RAM = 6GB swap. I don't remember why 2x on the
> >         > > >     first 2GB and this goes back to when 4GB was a lot on pre-configured
> >         > > >     retail boxes. So like Geoffrey I can't see having 18GB of swap for a
> >         > > >     16GB machine.
> >         > > >   
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> (PS - If you email me and don't get a quick response, you might want to
> call on the phone.  I get about 300 emails per day from alternate energy
> mailing lists and such.  I don't always see new messages very quickly.)
> 
> Ron Frazier
> 
> 770-205-9422 (O)   Leave a message.
> linuxdude AT c3energy.com
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20111013/26cb9bb1/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Ale mailing list