I had happened across How To Remotely Monitor Memory Usage and smiled when I saw this :
As one example of this phenomenon, the SUSE Linux system that I use for my public Web and e-mail server originally only had 512 MB of RAM. This should have been more than adequate for the lightweight load that I was expecting, but the system tools showed that the box was constantly running low on memory. And even after I bumped it up to a full gigabyte, the system still complained.
I had just gotten ready to add another gigabyte when I discovered that most of the memory was actually being consumed by SUSE's aggressive disk-caching algorithm. Every time I added more memory, the operating system drank it up for the disk cache. In reality I was nowhere near hitting any kind of memory limit for the applications themselves, even with just 512 MB.
"That's how Linux memory works", I thought to myself, "he should have
Well, yeah, he probably should have. That once again points out
the danger of assuming you know what's going on based upon your
knowledge of other systems. Being an expert at Solaris is helpful
with Linux but it can also lead you astray. The opposite
is just as true, of course.
But knowing something about "Linux" in general can also send you down the wrong path.
I said that's how Linux memory works, but that isn't necessarily
true either. The same article goes on to say:
RedHat and SUSE have substantially different algorithms when it comes to allocating cache memory. Where SUSE is very aggressive and tries to make full use of the available memory, RedHat leaves unused memory lying around in case it's suddenly needed by something.
So if you've "learned" that Linux uses available memory for buffer caching,
a RedHat system that doesn't could confuse you. But wait - that's
"Swappiness" was introduced in 2.6 kernels. When some program wants more
ram and the kernel has a bunch being used for caching, it could give
up some of that. Or it could just make some other less active
program swap out to disk. Which is a better idea? Well, of
course that depends on what is going on right now. If there is heavy
disk activity and programs that really aren't being used, it would
make sense to swap. If there isn't much disk activity, or those swappable
programs are apt to become active very soon, it makes sense to
give back memory.
The idea was that the admin knows best what his system might require,
so the admin should be able to say how much "swappiness" is desirable.
If swappiness was set to zero (echo 0 >/proc/sys/vm/swappiness), the
kernel would give up cache to anything that wanted ram; if it
were set to 100 it would do the opposite and let the
Well, great, but what if you don't have a clue because sometimes
your system has unused apps and sometimes it doesn't.? No
problem, somebody came up with something that would make
a good guess on the fly: Autoregulated VM Swappiness Patch.
"[The] amount of swap space consumed is also taken into account, and the size of it compared to the physical ram is taken into consideration when making its effect on the value of swappiness. With this patch, this should make any machine that has swapspace as resistant to OOM as possible. This version by default autoregulates the swappiness, but also allows you to choose a manual setting if you so desire by echo 0 > /proc/sys/vm/autoswappiness and then setting the swappiness the manual way as previously. This makes comparison with autoregulation easy."
But then: (
Bugzilla Bug 54560):
As of 2.6.7, gentoo-dev-sources no longer contains the Con Kolivas
autoregulated swappiness patch. This is important for desktop machines, to
avoid having large amounts of memory swapped out on prolonged system inactivity
(causing an annoying swapstorm when the machine is used again).
Desktops and laptops are apt to sit unused for long periods. Therefore
unused processes tend to get swapped. If
the kernel were really smart, it would notice that *nothing* of
importance is happening and just leave things as is, but apparently
we haven't reached that point yet. Or if we could have so much
real physical ram that we could eliminate swapping entirely..
Well, the minute you say "eliminate swap", someone will
point out that you *need* swap. There's a long discussion of swap and ram at Kernel trap: Is Swap Necessary?,
but most of the conversation there is at cross-purposes. For
multi-user machines, you definitely want swap because you want to
be able to be truly interactive: moving one program aside so that
another can run. But for a single user machine, you may not want
to swap: it might be preferable to have the system refuse to start up
a new app and let you decide what you'd rather get rid of to make room
Or maybe not. I'm in favor of control, but the default probably
should be to swap. Then again, maybe the default for desktops
and laptops should be different.. it remains a complicated
and difficult subject.
Got something to add? Send me email.
Increase ad revenue 50-250% with Ezoic
More Articles by Anthony Lawrence
Find me on Google+
© 2011-03-26 Anthony Lawrence