Swap and memory optimization

[mojo fms]

I would just bump the ram to 2gigs or 4 if it supports it and call it good.
You should be fine.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Bill Moran <wmoran at potentialtech.com> wrote:

> In response to Dan Nelson <dnelson at allantgroup.com>:
>
> > In the last episode (Oct 01), Bill Moran said:
> > > bsd <bsd at todoo.biz> wrote:
> > > > I have a FBSD 6.4p7 box that I use as a mail server - 1Go RAM - RAID1
> > > > Works quite well.
> > > >
> > > > As I plan to put 100 more mail accounts soon on the server I was
> > > > wondering if the memory & swap was ok on the server considering these
> > > > figures:
> > > >
> > > > last pid: 18956;  load averages:  0.04,  0.11,  0.05 up  19+08:36:23
>  09:53:38
> > > > 125 processes: 1 running, 124 sleeping
> > > > CPU:  0.0% user,  0.0% nice,  1.5% system,  0.4% interrupt, 98.1%
> idle
> > > > Mem: 499M Active, 70M Inact, 362M Wired, 41M Cache, 111M Buf, 20M
> Free
> > > > Swap: 2000M Total, 160M Used, 1840M Free, 8% Inuse
> > > >
> > > > Though It looks good to me - the server swaps a bit (between 8 to
> 14%)
> > > > and there is not much memory left.
> > >
> > > Looks like the server would run more smoothly with a bit more RAM.  At
> > > least an additional 256M, I would think, but considering the price of
> RAM,
> > > you might as well just up it to 2G.
> >
> > The amount of used swap is much less important than whether you are
> actively
> > swapping (if there are In/Out values on the Swap line in top, or if
> "vmstat
> > 1" shows nonzero values in the pi/po columns).  160MB of used swap is
> fine
> > if it's just unused daemons (getty, idle webserver, etc).  More memory
> can
> > never hurt, but it doesn't seem like it's urgently needed here.
>
> I don't know about that, Dan.  Especially considering it's a mail server
> he's talking about, there's no RAM left for disk cache on that machine.
>
> We've seen performance gains on our mail server by putting obscene
> amounts of RAM into it.  After a bit of use, FreeBSD ends up having 6.5G
> of inactive RAM, which I assume is cache of mailboxes.  The result is that
> while watching gstat, the amount of disk reads is very low (since a lot
> of data is already in RAM) and the IO is available to do fast writes when
> new mail comes in.
>
> --
> Bill Moran
> http://www.potentialtech.com
> http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/
>  _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>



-- 
Who knew