This is not completely true. When you add some swap to your systems you will find that there is some margin where it will use the swap but not slowdown. This is because some processes allocate memory that they later (almost) never touch. This will be swapped out, and your RAM will be used for better things.
More of an issue on servers than workstations I would think, where you have more stuff sitting around idle waiting for something to happen. I tend not to run things I'm not going to use.
But my 1GB RAM system has 100MB of swapspace in use, and I have not run any very-large applications in the 41 days it is up.
Of course, but that doesn't mean the used swap is actually needed though. Right now I have 700MB of disk cache - it wouldn't matter much to me if adding swap made that 800MB instead. What would matter is if I did some heavy IO tasks, like copying around a few ISO images, that made it swap everything out to boost the cache, and afterwards I have to wait for it to swap everything back in. Turning swap off (or tuning it to not swap unless absolutely necessary) would stop that.
I've run my Linux systems without swap for years (since 2.2) without any problems. Of course, I make sure I have way more RAM than I am likely to need (the stuff is practically free these days; but OTOH, so is HDD space.....).
Simply put, you need enough 'memory' to hold all the stuff you want to run, plus caches. For a given task, you might go for a system with 512MB RAM and a 512MB swap, and I'll just go for 1GB RAM and forget the swap. The only difference is that if/when your system comes up on its RAM limit, it's going to start slowing down. When it starts using a lot of swap, it's going to crawl. But it'll still run. Until you run out of both.
Mine will run like blazes upto the 1024MB limit, then barf. No warnings like with swap.
So if you want an early warning sign, use swap. If your needs are well known and won't push beyond the limits of your hardware, don't bother.
You can always add a swap file later/only the fly as your needs change anyway.
Yeah, but you get a free MCSE in every bag of Twisties. Unix Gurus cost a lot, think the Sun shines out of places it shouldn't, dress funny, smell funny, and have all sorts of strange ideas.
PowerPC port eliminated what little technical difficulties OS/2 Warp had. It was exceptional. Therefore, IBM simply had to kill it.
I heard the opposite - OS/2 was so monumentally sucktacular on PowerPC that they had to rewrite it. During which, all five people that actually gave a damn about OS/2 lost interest.
The horrifically noisy and weak AMD fans (and their associated undersized heatsinks) may be 'good enough' for people who are used to Windows crashing every couple of days, but it's not good enough for me.
What the fuck are you talking about? My main workstation/gaming box runs WXP on a Barton 2500+ with stock cooler, doesn't make a racket (OK, it's not an 80mm 'silent' fan, big deal), and never crashes.
Stock cooling is fine for most people (that don't live in the middle of the desert).
There's nothing (significant) to make them start either. Businesses exist to make money, and they've been doing a pretty decent job of it so far, even with their little antitrust problems. Becoming a company geeks could love is a major risk to the shareholders, and they might have a little problem with that.
Urm.. modular/monolithic has nothing to do with macro/micro. Kernel modules run in kernel space, just as if they were compiled in. If it were a microkernel OS, they'd run in userspace.
For me, HPFS after a fresh install was upto 20%. And of course my BBS's message base files fragmented severely quite quickly.
The rest was pretty decent though.
As I recall, HPFS even when fragmented didn't suffer so badly as other FSs, since if the file fragments managed to stay in the same band, the heads didn't have far to go. HPFS deliberately caused Disk fragmentation to avoid File fragmentation. Most others put everything up one end, so when there's no more room to expand a file, they're off to the other end of the disk. Pretty decent tradeoff - I think even by OS/2's peak we were pretty much past needing to keep important files at the 'fast spots' on the HDD.
1) You can't customize the UI much. It just works the way it works;
2) This is the bigger one: you get only one desktop.
Get Litestep. Problem solved.
I run an older version with just hotkey and sysvwm modules loaded (no fancy themes and shit) - that gives me extra hotkeys, and basic virtual desktops. The whole thing is 80k, so I keep it on my USB key and take it everywhere.
the USA could cut emissions to zero and still not make things better
If an economic powerhouse (heh) like the USA goes zero-emissions, it's likely the technology would be cheap enough for use in developing countries as well. Deals like Kyoto push the task of developing this technology onto wealthy countries that can afford it; without them such technology won't be developed until economics force it to be, by which time <tinfoil hat=on> you have large, poor, but nuclear armed countries fighting over resources they're heavily dependant on.
Being an electro-gizmo type of vehicle anyway, you'd think the breakers would be wired into the collision detection systems. If any of your airbags go off, for example, the breaker trips as well.
Are your users virtual or real (ie. have unix accounts)?
I do spam filtering in my.qmail files, rather than system wide (means patching qmail... bugger that).
Re:because it's an ugly, lumbering dinosaur
on
Postfix 2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
a little desktop (high priority to input-related tasks,
swap only when needed) would work well for a high-load server (high priority to compute-related tasks, swap agressively to make RAM quickly available)?
Desktops do that too. Users are prone to starting large apps at random, so it helps to have plenty of spare RAM available by quietly swapping out/syncing caches in the background.
Of course, what power costs you, the consumer, isn't what it costs, full stop. There's greenhouse gas emissions and other power plant exhaust pollution, depletion of resources, destruction of wilderness by mines and their associated infrastructure, and more.
Most of Australia's electricity is generated by coal-fired power plants, which emit an awful lot of carbon dioxide. And coal plant fly ash contains radioactive uranium and thorium in surprising amounts. Even if the ash is effectively caught by filters, something still has to be done with it.
Not that fly ash scraped out of a filter and dropped into a bucket is actually amazingly dangerous stuff, but waste of similar levels of activity that happens to come from nuclear power plants is treated like pure megadeathium. You certainly can't get away with burying it in dams.
Except, isn't it illegal to withhold or even forget your encryption keys in England? A trend that probably isn't far away from getting adopted by other countries (like.. say, next time a so-called Free Trade Agreement is due for renewal). So.. give us the key(s) or we'll throw your arse in a cell with Tiny until you change you mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, but that doesn't mean the used swap is actually needed though. Right now I have 700MB of disk cache - it wouldn't matter much to me if adding swap made that 800MB instead. What would matter is if I did some heavy IO tasks, like copying around a few ISO images, that made it swap everything out to boost the cache, and afterwards I have to wait for it to swap everything back in. Turning swap off (or tuning it to not swap unless absolutely necessary) would stop that.
I've run my Linux systems without swap for years (since 2.2) without any problems. Of course, I make sure I have way more RAM than I am likely to need (the stuff is practically free these days; but OTOH, so is HDD space.....).
/data/swap /data/swap
Simply put, you need enough 'memory' to hold all the stuff you want to run, plus caches. For a given task, you might go for a system with 512MB RAM and a 512MB swap, and I'll just go for 1GB RAM and forget the swap. The only difference is that if/when your system comes up on its RAM limit, it's going to start slowing down. When it starts using a lot of swap, it's going to crawl. But it'll still run. Until you run out of both.
Mine will run like blazes upto the 1024MB limit, then barf. No warnings like with swap.
So if you want an early warning sign, use swap. If your needs are well known and won't push beyond the limits of your hardware, don't bother.
You can always add a swap file later/only the fly as your needs change anyway.
dd if=/dev/zero of=/data/swap bs=1M count=512
mkswap
swapon
Yeah, but you get a free MCSE in every bag of Twisties. Unix Gurus cost a lot, think the Sun shines out of places it shouldn't, dress funny, smell funny, and have all sorts of strange ideas.
Stock cooling is fine for most people (that don't live in the middle of the desert).
I should point out that if said fossil fuel burner is using coal, the waste collected by your air scrubbers will be radioactive.
Win any of the Apple stuff, sell it, and buy TWO Athlon 64s.
Only when Picard has the day off, and Riker goes back in time and abducts southerners for.. uh.. 'personal tests'
Sounds like the thing they flew in Toy Soldiers.
:)
Maybe CleverNickName remebers where the control surfaces were?
There's nothing (significant) to make them start either. Businesses exist to make money, and they've been doing a pretty decent job of it so far, even with their little antitrust problems. Becoming a company geeks could love is a major risk to the shareholders, and they might have a little problem with that.
Uh, what? IBM had their own antitrust problems, from the 50's through at least 1997.
Urm.. modular/monolithic has nothing to do with macro/micro. Kernel modules run in kernel space, just as if they were compiled in. If it were a microkernel OS, they'd run in userspace.
For me, HPFS after a fresh install was upto 20%. And of course my BBS's message base files fragmented severely quite quickly.
The rest was pretty decent though.
As I recall, HPFS even when fragmented didn't suffer so badly as other FSs, since if the file fragments managed to stay in the same band, the heads didn't have far to go. HPFS deliberately caused Disk fragmentation to avoid File fragmentation. Most others put everything up one end, so when there's no more room to expand a file, they're off to the other end of the disk. Pretty decent tradeoff - I think even by OS/2's peak we were pretty much past needing to keep important files at the 'fast spots' on the HDD.
..but my corporate overlords got hit by Sasser and I couldn't get a new certificate :(
I run an older version with just hotkey and sysvwm modules loaded (no fancy themes and shit) - that gives me extra hotkeys, and basic virtual desktops. The whole thing is 80k, so I keep it on my USB key and take it everywhere.
Being an electro-gizmo type of vehicle anyway, you'd think the breakers would be wired into the collision detection systems. If any of your airbags go off, for example, the breaker trips as well.
# BUGBUG: put ingress filtering on this vent.
# someone might want to... I dunno... shoot a
# torpedo down there or something.
Woah, that herring of yours is glowing in the fucking dark...
Are your users virtual or real (ie. have unix accounts)?
.qmail files, rather than system wide (means patching qmail... bugger that).
I do spam filtering in my
Except, isn't it illegal to withhold or even forget your encryption keys in England? A trend that probably isn't far away from getting adopted by other countries (like.. say, next time a so-called Free Trade Agreement is due for renewal). So.. give us the key(s) or we'll throw your arse in a cell with Tiny until you change you mind.