From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-140454-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B3D13800E
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed,  8 Aug 2012 17:26:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 216EAE055C;
	Wed,  8 Aug 2012 17:25:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584E8E04C7
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed,  8 Aug 2012 17:24:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so538175bkw.40
        for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
        h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to
         :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type;
        bh=xNbc8lOwSb0yf8Itz2x+FmBLJrgw7PXTXP6hA6RWVGU=;
        b=uhlnIw1cu41CKZjcE38YFQrEJrLDxKd19EmSr8kF0WMskWH9SeV0q7YRFVzpZep3Ih
         5JhW6O++yBTe6+3R/HloVn1akhPogG86Nt/RAle+8VJjOtODT6oNgJfh4csfRBZ/E+pE
         Qg/nqJyjUm2f0TCIVdq0VYsseFFHx3HaIecG8aJ6tPmpXDKga3498P1s1eJn4R1fFjts
         EcX+RB+KSU1fs2a6F7mqZDT/gN002toIRHcAOOUzEh3kSCB/dkadhBHvbf8QoKuSCh39
         hMae/LOdd+gCDhB7mclGrDd3rxSVZL31+R6XI1a6kw+i2dI5JodByA8x+b9nMYuD9BBF
         PnOg==
Received: by 10.205.134.133 with SMTP id ic5mr8137697bkc.15.1344446648360;
        Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localnet (p4FC60F12.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [79.198.15.18])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ht18sm10655678bkc.16.2012.08.08.10.24.05
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: Philip Webb <purslow@ca.inter.net>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] kernels & swap usage
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:24:04 +0200
Message-ID: <2841234.fK1LqJUg2U@localhost>
User-Agent: KMail/4.9 (Linux/3.2.24; KDE/4.9.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20120807050229.GE2865@ca.inter.net>
References: <20120807050229.GE2865@ca.inter.net>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Archives-Salt: ff59190d-e934-4c54-991c-926389ec77b1
X-Archives-Hash: 53a0387c1df589c5230240cea545c715

Am Dienstag, 7. August 2012, 01:02:29 schrieb Philip Webb:
> Just an observation : when I updated Libre Office & Firefox this week,
> neither compile used swap (I have  4 GB  RAM);
> OTOH when I did them the previous time, both did use swap;
> the total time & the HDD usage remained almost the same.
> In between, I updated the Kernel 3.0.0 -> 3.4.0 ,
> but made no other changes in config files etc.
> 
> Does anyone have thoughts re the effect of kernel versions on swapping ?

different kernel versions are more or less swap happy. Has always been the 
case.
(I remember 2.2.10 - extreme swapping even with lots of ram... and 2.2.14 - no 
swapping at all...)

-- 
#163933