[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] Swap not swap

To: list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [LUG] Swap not swap
From: Philip Hudson <phil.hudson@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:40:59 +0000
Delivered-to: dclug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=8iELrrYbKIOVaqSzQgKWXjwvR8Ic92+6mOxnVFJjlPM=; b=fcN25AQ24mbiP4eU9WnzwWLNsCJa63kezgnjeCSzw7aJ9f6CAgFwXzDYc8pe4jPgzy bMaL2E9h1cNzDh8TF5wb8BHT9mrjuMeP09bPR/RiRZcmEbvpedKtsWC9iAxKNLqIHXfF gZ/J+uDMlXebQL79OIxzupEzUoLcs3KICsv4weUiWdext4WDquQq9z2FEIJEGcrSIPz0 yXTdVgt6ZP94AdrzJZ1jVb8i0PkbcAN5y3CzjGt0/1h25KijrxIGyMxRwj73lbgrJ7/L MxORzjTl4HKICcWTLYN6r2PI23ksiper7Hwa9sNXovJgdzWkG1mNHVzddedmWsSgeGTj 8G3g==

On 18 November 2013 13:16, Simon Waters <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Is the performance issue really memory limited, or did this just bring the odd swap usage to your attention?

The latter. Not sure about the former; seems unlikely, since we're talking about usage patterns and data that have not changed. Most likely a recent software update from testing... but what? I've killed every daemon I know it's safe to on the box.

--
Phil Hudson http://hudson-it.no-ip.biz
@UWascalWabbit PGP/GnuPG ID: 0x887DCA63

-- 
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq

Follow-up: Re: [LUG] Swap not swap
- From: Gordon Henderson

References:
- [LUG] Swap not swap
  - From: Philip Hudson
- Re: [LUG] Swap not swap
  - From: Simon Waters

Prev by Date: Re: [LUG] Swap not swap
Next by Date: Re: [LUG] Simple programming language
Previous by thread: Re: [LUG] Swap not swap
Next by thread: Re: [LUG] Swap not swap
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread