From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FPoDv-0001og-1I for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 22:05:35 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with SMTP id k31M4qhp026329; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 22:04:52 GMT Received: from ms-smtp-01.tampabay.rr.com (ms-smtp-01.tampabay.rr.com [65.32.5.131]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k31Lw36P004769 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:58:03 GMT Received: from keelie.localdomain (151.179.121.70.cfl.res.rr.com [70.121.179.151]) by ms-smtp-01.tampabay.rr.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k31Lw1ig026302 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 16:58:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from keelie.localdomain (151.179.121.70.cfl.res.rr.com [70.121.179.151]) by keelie.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id A494F12983B for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 16:58:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] anyone having apache2 memory issues From: Jim To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <442EE194.1010402@mid.email-server.info> References: <1143867028.19111.8.camel@phoenix.arcterex.net> <1143922309.11529.12.camel@keelie.localdomain> <442EE194.1010402@mid.email-server.info> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 16:58:01 -0500 Message-Id: <1143928681.22321.8.camel@keelie.localdomain> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.2.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-Archives-Salt: bbc8e119-dea4-44ad-95eb-d2ab34db3648 X-Archives-Hash: c673b3c6ed07433ee2596c4a2bd7b68c On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 22:24 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote: > Jim wrote: > > > Here is a little program I tossed together to free that cached memory. > > Hm. Why do this? Do you actually get any performance benefits > after having freed the memory occupied by the cache? > > In theory, you shouldn't see any benefits, as the system > should throw away memory pages occupied by cache stuff, > as soon as there are "more important" requests (like > any malloc). > > Or am I wrong? That is how it should be. However I noticed when I only had 512 MB of memory that most of my memory would be "used" and I would see a lot of cache. Instead of that cache being freed or used, I would see a lot of swap file usage which really kills performance. I basically don't want to see swap touched unless I actually run out of physical memory. The best thing to do besides have a bunch of memory is to tune your "swappiness": http://kerneltrap.org/node/3000 Now that I have 2 GB of memory, I don't worry about it any more. However when I had 512MB it was an issues, especially when trying to run apache, mysql, postfix, courier and a full desktop. Jim -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I'm a geek, but I don't get it. 36-24-36 = -24. What's the significance? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Florida, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list