I'm wondering if this will really make Malaysia a "normal country in which race and religion would not be an unalloyed obsession", or if the de facto single party system is what has kept the country together in the face of racial and religious obsession.
I want you to recommend projects that welcome people that never contributed to FOSS before. I am planning to do a workshop this year to encourage people to make their first contributions. What I need:
- A page explaining how they could contribute. - General recommendations and documentation. - Where they can contact people involved in such projects in case they have questions.
@deadsuperhero Before you bash yourself up about it too much, it could also be something else that doesn't involve you, and he just wasn't ready to talk about it yet.
@clacke UNIX v7 was a swapping system. I think AT&T only added paging to System V, years after 3BSD. As far as using the swap area to back paging, of course BSD did it first. Obviously, where else do you want to page? Swapping into filesystem objects was years ahead still. So, Linus does not have anything with that naming convention.
If there were systems that already did swapping and then transitioned into paging, I guess it makes sense that they had mixed terminology, and then Linux just inherited that.
My brother would get very frustrated if he saw what I'm writing here. He's from a generation of nerds that cares about the difference between "swapping" and "paging".
Swapping is when you move an entire process out of memory and onto disk, as some pre-unix systems did, and maybe some early unices, I'm not sure. Paging is when you divide memory into memory pages and can move individual pages of a process onto disk.
Linux uses paging, but Linus named the paging area swap space, the tool to set it up mkswap, and used the term swap in the interfaces (except when he didn't!), so here we are.
@shellkr Adding swap generally does not degrade performance. It may even improve performance, as more space available for paged out memory may lead to more RAM available for the page cache.
Without swap, dirty pages are given privilege and will always get RAM, with swap the system has the chance to prioritize frequently accesse clean pages over rarely accessed dirty pages.
In practice, whether adding swap actually improves performance depends on the type of workload and how well the kernel reasons based on the workload. For some workloads, the kernel may make bad decisions and removing the option of paging out dirty pages to swap may improve performance.
tmpfs is not RAM. You cannot add more RA by increasing tmpfs size. There is no such thing as a program running out of tmpfs and starting to use swap.
Regardless whether you put your data in files in tmpfs or you keep it in process memory, it uses virtual memory. It will stay in RAM if possible, but if necessary it will be paged out to disk.
When the system runs out of virtual memory, swappiness determines nothing. The system will not give an out-of-memory error until it has tried evicting every clean page (flushing all cache) and paging out every dirty page. Swappiness determines how eager it is to page pages out when it doesn't have to. It affects performance, but cannot affect whether the system runs out of memory.
It didn't say whether it ran out of RAM or swap, because running out of RAM or swap isn't a thing. It ran out of memory so I added memory.
Yes, 8GB is a lot of virtual memory to keep on disk, but whether it makes your machine slow depends on how you use it. Your machine becomes slow if the active set, the amount of memory continually accessed while the current processes are running, is larger than your RAM. At that point it doesn't matter how much swap you have, except that if you have too little for supplying the amount of memory (RAM+swap) required, something will run out of memory.
@thor She was openly pro-bremain, and now she is going to fulfill the referendum outcome to the letter, but no further, and still try to get what she considers the best possible deal out of it.
@cobra2 Do you know what this means? Does this mean ZFS is using 3 GB of memory?
$ cat /sys/module/zfs/coresize 3407872
I just saw the filename and looked inside. I've been searching around just a few minutes and haven't seen any mention of this file, but maybe there's a good reference overview of the whole /sys/.../zfs tree somewhere?