Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
[SOLVED] swap or swapfile?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Installing Gentoo
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
xanderal
n00b
n00b


Joined: 06 Mar 2019
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:29 am    Post subject: [SOLVED] swap or swapfile? Reply with quote

Hi, I'm thinking of giving gentoo a go but had a question first:
I have 16g ram and a 512 GB SSD M.2 PCIe NVMe Opal2 on my new laptop.
I haven't needed swap yet but always created a swap partition anyways.
But now I'm thinking of instead creating a swapfile after the installation or not doing either.
Any thoughts?


Last edited by xanderal on Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:51 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 6965

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think that you should try another distro ; gentoo do compile and takes cpu time, something laptop are at best medium at doing the task with power and heat issue.
while many gentoo users do use gentoo with a laptop, i think only hardcore users has start learning gentoo with one.
you could get the max out of a laptop because of gentoo tunning, but using one to "play/discover" gentoo won't be the best first experience for a new user.

in case you want only "throughts" about the swapfile, the answer is : don't care, you can do all you want from partition to file anytime you wish or need.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42569
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

xan73r4l,

As its a laptop, make a swap partition equal to your RAM size.
Its used for suspend to disk. If that's not a feature you will use, you can add a swapfile late.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Irre
Guru
Guru


Joined: 09 Nov 2013
Posts: 336
Location: Stockholm

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have no swap partition, but I attach an external disk when I need to rebuild gcc, llvm etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fedeliallalinea
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 21334
Location: here

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also repeat what NeddySeagoon said, creates a swap partition of the same size as the ram for suspend to disk
_________________
Questions are guaranteed in life; Answers aren't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
axl
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 507
Location: Romania

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally I do not use swap to suspend to disk, but sometimes, some of the systems actually need swap because they run out of memory. PS3 for instance only has 256 MB of memory. You can get decent performance out of a combination of zswap and zram, both provided by kernel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2514

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have an 8-core atom system. It has 16gb and an ssd, and also a spinner. So the same type of thing in some ways? Only my atom is server hardware and does not support suspend to RAM or sleep.

I usually have a swap partition the size of RAM on each drive. In this case it's a small ssd and I would rather prevent wear, so I just have swap on the spinner. That said, I NEVER hit swap, and if I notice that I do, I get more RAM if possible. The idea of swap was to prevent system failure in an out-of-memory situation. Not to be a regular part of every day, like some people seem to think.

That said, and the reason I use swap at all, is because I use a lot of tmpfs partitions. /tmp and /var/tmp for example. /var/tmp is 4g in my case because I don't use any GUI items. If you use a GUI you will want it to be larger. If you want to build Firefox or such it should be significantly larger.

tmpfs makes your system much faster by using RAM as disk for those locations. /tmp is a system-wide general purpose temp directory. Everything that goes in there can be "forgotten" on reboot without harm. /var/tmp (specifically /var/tmp/portage) is used by portage as compile space, and likewise can be forgotten between boots or even between builds.

The tmpfs system uses the same hardware on your CPU that is used for swap. In the event of your regular RAM + your tmpfs mounts being greater than physical RAM, the VM hardware decides what is least likely to be used and swaps it out. It could be some part of RAM or it could be some part of your tmpfs mounts, or whatever else is using the VM mechanism. The thing is, this mechanism is very good at making these decisions, so it makes it less likely that your system actually wants back whatever was swapped out.

Right at the moment, with a week or so of uptime, my gentoo atom system has 9.3 GiB free, 0B used on swap.

My swap partition is serving the same function as a motorcycle helmet. You really should have it but you hope you never have to use it. If you must use it, it can save you a lot of pain.

In some cases I have had a system in service so long that I needed my swap partition and even had to build another. That's when I use the regular file on another partition, because in those situations it may not be feasible to add storage or modify existing storage. Also note that in this situation I set up the swap and immediately begin working on a physical upgrade to a new system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fitzcarraldo
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Posts: 1631
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

xan73r4l,

Just for information, it is also possible to suspend to disk (a.k.a. hibernate) using a swapfile instead of a swap partition:

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Suspend_and_hibernate#Suspend_to_disk_with_swapfile

(Ubuntu, for example, installs with a swapfile rather than a swap partition, so I configured my family's PC running Lubuntu to be able to hibernate to the swapfile.)
_________________
Clevo W230SS: amd64 OpenRC elogind nvidia-drivers & xf86-video-intel.
Compal NBLB2: ~amd64 OpenRC elogind xf86-video-ati. Dual boot Win 7 Pro 64-bit.
KDE on both.

Fitzcarraldo's blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42569
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fitzcarraldo,

Thank you. I was aware that suspend to a file was a work in progress.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
xanderal
n00b
n00b


Joined: 06 Mar 2019
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry for taking so long to come around again.
Thank you for the replies, that helped a lot, especially @1clue :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2514

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry to be pedantic about this.

My habit of having a swap partition on every disk doesn't mean I use that much swap. As I said before, the existence and "use" of swap is for me sort of like a motorcycle helmet.

Also having a swap partition on every disk which is the size of RAM is way overkill. You should never turn all that on, or at least you should never plan to use it all at the same time.

One thing that has happened to me is that I needed disk space for some reason, and at that point I'd delete the swap partition and then repurpose that space. Or I'll just leave it and let the disk firmware use that space to patch bad sectors. This is less important as disks get bigger, because the tiny bit of space for a swap partition is inconsequential compared to the size of the disk.

The point is that you never know when you need an actual physical partition, or when the conditions of your use case will change. In my opinion it's better to have something reserved.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
axl
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 507
Location: Romania

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I love the idea of swap as a motorcycle helmet. I get what you are saying perfectly. But did you know they invented compressed ram as swap? So instead of using a disk to create more space out of nothing, you get to try to compress some of the ram u're using, into compressed ram. and if don't leverage your arch too much it's way more elegant than swap on disk. and WAY faster. I mean, how hard can it be for the kernel to run a gzip in ram instead of a cp on a very slow disk? think about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2514

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've heard of compressed RAM as disk.

RAM is cheaper than it ever has been. Absolutely every scheme you can come up with to store swap somewhere, it won't be as fast as just not needing swap in the first place. It won't be as simple either.

What I'm saying is that using compressed RAM as a disk for swap may be legitimate, but in my case it makes no difference. A plain-old spinner is fine for me. Because literally, if I find out that my system has swapped even once, I will go out and buy more RAM. It just takes one time, unless it was a programming error that gobbled up all my RAM and kept going. I'm sticking with my motorcycle helmet.

Linux does something interesting with free memory. It caches things that you've read in, it keeps track of that information. As long as you haven't officially allocated that memory for an app, that information is there. A system with large amounts of RAM will get faster the longer it's up, because eventually Linux knows every part of the disk you've been hitting and short-circuits a disk read using the cache.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lars
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Posts: 163
Location: Germany, near baltic sea

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have also 16GB or RAM and an 128GB SSD for system. I don't use swap for something like hibernate. Also I have no swap partition nor swap file.

I have actived zram for swap, /tmp and also /var/tmp/portage. Sounds stupid, but believe me, it works like a RAM doubler. With a fast CPU like my i7 6700k it works like a charm.
Swap use some compressed space in RAM, therefore more space for other stuff. It writes bytes faster to swap-RAM with compression than to every other disk a disk. Also /tmp and /var/tmp/portage are good for that.

So IMHO the SSD is under less stress to write things to disk, which we never use for longer.

There is only two stupid things, first zram is not so dynamic as expected. I need to give a upper limit for space. Second, never store some important data to /tmp nor /var/tmp/portage, because after reboot everything here is gone.

zram swap 4gb
zram /tmp 8gb
zram /var/tmp/portage 8gb

These 20gb need less real RAM as the real 16gb most the time. (algo: lz4)

One last point: Every byte you write to ssd disk, kills it a little bit.
_________________
Quote:
Alles was nicht einfach ist, ist entweder falsch oder zu kompliziert.

V.Glazounov
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17766

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is there a practical point where zram makes sense? Given 16GB of actual RAM, reserving 4GB for zram means the system would start swapping when RAM usage hits 12GB, no? Presuming that to be true, then that same system without zram would likely not have gone to swap at all or as soon. That approach sounds like zram being useful as a canary in a coal mine to warn when it might be time to buy more RAM, or reconsider how the system is used.

How is over subscribing handled (as in Lars' example of 16GB of RAM, 20GB of subscribed zram)? In my experience, over subscribing tends to be a dangerous practice where data integrity and system availability are important.
_________________
I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 5592

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Is there a practical point where zram makes sense? Given 16GB of actual RAM, reserving 4GB for zram means the system would start swapping when RAM usage hits 12GB, no?

No.

The system will use 16GB less min_free_kbytes before being forced to swap, like it would with a regular swap partition, or with 20GB of tmpfs mounts. If zram runs out of VFS cache to put stuff in then it falls back on regular swap using the normal priority mechanism. If everything runs out of space, it starts paging out executables and eventually the OOM killer fires, but it'll be thrashing for some time before that point. zram is good for avoiding the huge slowdown of small amounts of swapping over ATA, but under pressure it seems to make things worse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17766

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting. I'll have to look into it, thanks. The "worse under pressure" seems important to understand regarding use / don't use.
_________________
I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
axl
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 507
Location: Romania

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

2 things.

first, dont use zram devices to write stuff. because they are slower then the ram counter devices. use shm or ramfs instead.

and the second thing, dont think of compressed ram as you would have imagine old type swap. it's different. first of all you use zram but also zswap together. And second of all, don't think of the swap as something smaller than your huge ram. but think of it as double or triple the size of your ram. zswap sometimes manages to compress stuff 3 times over. So, in an ideal situation, when you compress all your ram, your final swap uncompressed space will be 3 times bigger. you can define it a hundred times bigger, if it can be compressed it will fit in there, if not, the kernel will complain that it ran out of memory. But the point is, the swap space has to be considerably larger than your actual ram. because ram is now compressed pages and swap is the real ram where things are uncompressed in fact. its a little bit counter-intuitive, I know.

Lets say my computer has 24 Gb of ram. I make 3 zram partitions of 24Gb each, activate as ram. I ran a script, that inits 64 variables equal to 1Gb in zeros. My script shows up in top with like 99% percent memory usage and 40Gb of swap. I don't have 64Gb of memory in my system. But my system is able to compress those zeroes very fast into compressed pages. In the real world, maybe the stuff in your memory is not as easy to compress as zeroes, however, there are real life applications where this design works very very well. I find VM's work very well in this type of environment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2514

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

axl wrote:
2 things.

first, dont use zram devices to write stuff. because they are slower then the ram counter devices. use shm or ramfs instead.

and the second thing, dont think of compressed ram as you would have imagine old type swap. it's different. first of all you use zram but also zswap together. And second of all, don't think of the swap as something smaller than your huge ram. but think of it as double or triple the size of your ram. zswap sometimes manages to compress stuff 3 times over. So, in an ideal situation, when you compress all your ram, your final swap uncompressed space will be 3 times bigger. you can define it a hundred times bigger, if it can be compressed it will fit in there, if not, the kernel will complain that it ran out of memory. But the point is, the swap space has to be considerably larger than your actual ram. because ram is now compressed pages and swap is the real ram where things are uncompressed in fact. its a little bit counter-intuitive, I know.

Lets say my computer has 24 Gb of ram. I make 3 zram partitions of 24Gb each, activate as ram. I ran a script, that inits 64 variables equal to 1Gb in zeros. My script shows up in top with like 99% percent memory usage and 40Gb of swap. I don't have 64Gb of memory in my system. But my system is able to compress those zeroes very fast into compressed pages. In the real world, maybe the stuff in your memory is not as easy to compress as zeroes, however, there are real life applications where this design works very very well. I find VM's work very well in this type of environment.


This sounds like a recipe for a really slow, unstable system.

Why not just get more RAM? Are you claiming that your 24GB system using zram would be as fast as the same system with 72GB RAM? Or as stable?

Swap is at best a way to avoid crashing when the system runs out of memory. It was never intended for everyday use. Everyday use leads to wear of the disk surface on a normal disk, but you claim to remedy that by using the RAM instead.

But on a disk-based swap, the data goes out of RAM. On RAM-based swap, you're compressing a file (which will have a variable benefit depending on what's being compressed) and then storing it back in RAM. So if we accept your 33% figure as an average, you have a limited benefit and a bunch of extra cpu activity as overhead.

Your idea of compressing everything is just wrong. Executable code doesn't compress very well, and it would be of questionable benefit to compress it. And you wouldn't be able to compress everything really, because the system needs some place to actually execute code and manipulate data.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
axl
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 507
Location: Romania

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I used 24 Gb arbitrary to make a point. The reason I don't buy more ram is that I cannot fit more inside :)

And no, I'm clearly not saying that whatever quantity of compressed ram is better than actual ram. That would be silly. What I am saying is that certain applications could benefit more from compressed swap rather than swap on disk. This stuff allows you multi-thread compress/decompress, it's using ram as backend, you can even customize the compressor to suit your needs.

Just give it a go, instead of making suppositions. You could test the stuff with your workload.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
axl
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 507
Location: Romania

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KiB Mem : 30878088 total, 17478356 free, 12890592 used, 509140 buff/cache
KiB Swap: 94371824 total, 79174280 free, 15197548 used. 17557476 avail Mem


kernel reports 13.5 Gb used or in cache. and 15 Gb of swap. maybe my math is wrong. or this script. I'm sorry I use mostly php for testing things. but here is the script:

Code:
#!/usr/bin/env php
<?php

ini_set("memory_limit", "1024G");

$var = array(); $i = 0;

while (memory_get_usage() < 100000000000)
{
        $now = microtime(true);
        $var[$i] = str_repeat(str_repeat(0, 1000000), 1000);
        $i++;
        echo "memory usage: " . memory_get_usage() . " in " . (microtime(true) - $now) . "\n";
}


this will just fill you memory with useless zeroes. when i run this program, even as root, here is my ouput:

Code:
Thu Apr 18 - 00:45:57
[root@magdalina:~]# time ./test.php
memory usage: 1000237624 in 0.20823788642883
memory usage: 2000237824 in 0.47819304466248
memory usage: 3000237984 in 0.49327301979065
memory usage: 4000238144 in 0.49910807609558
memory usage: 5000238304 in 0.49364805221558
memory usage: 6000238464 in 0.49161100387573
memory usage: 7000238624 in 0.49046611785889
memory usage: 8000238784 in 0.50596594810486
memory usage: 9000239008 in 0.49026298522949
memory usage: 10000239168 in 0.48994708061218
memory usage: 11000239328 in 0.48658013343811
memory usage: 12000239488 in 0.48827981948853
memory usage: 13000239648 in 0.49429392814636
memory usage: 14000239808 in 0.48733401298523
memory usage: 15000239968 in 0.48713397979736
memory usage: 16000240128 in 0.48232007026672
memory usage: 17000240416 in 0.49783611297607
memory usage: 18000240576 in 0.56521511077881
memory usage: 19000240736 in 0.41711902618408
memory usage: 20000240896 in 1.2799987792969
memory usage: 21000241056 in 1.3675591945648
memory usage: 22000241216 in 1.3031830787659
memory usage: 23000241376 in 1.4359068870544
memory usage: 24000241536 in 1.4080228805542
memory usage: 25000241696 in 1.7497329711914
memory usage: 26000241856 in 1.1734609603882
memory usage: 27000242016 in 1.0919210910797
memory usage: 28000242176 in 1.067312002182
memory usage: 29000242336 in 1.098207950592
memory usage: 30000242496 in 1.0566749572754
memory usage: 31000242656 in 1.0314788818359
memory usage: 32000242816 in 1.0274531841278
memory usage: 33000243232 in 1.0231990814209
memory usage: 34000243392 in 1.0117490291595
memory usage: 35000243552 in 0.97728300094604
memory usage: 36000243712 in 1.1899220943451
memory usage: 37000243872 in 1.1982200145721
memory usage: 38000244032 in 0.93628287315369
memory usage: 39000244192 in 0.77941298484802
memory usage: 40000244352 in 2.5430860519409
memory usage: 41000244512 in 1.1171550750732
memory usage: 42000244672 in 1.3339128494263
memory usage: 43000244832 in 1.232540845871
memory usage: 44000244992 in 1.0791800022125
memory usage: 45000245152 in 1.3929359912872
memory usage: 46000245312 in 2.2033121585846
memory usage: 47000245472 in 1.4098370075226
memory usage: 48000245632 in 1.5327978134155
memory usage: 49000245792 in 1.7851541042328
memory usage: 50000245952 in 1.2394499778748
memory usage: 51000246112 in 1.0209469795227
memory usage: 52000246272 in 1.2215352058411
memory usage: 53000246432 in 1.248762845993
memory usage: 54000246592 in 1.8465731143951
memory usage: 55000246752 in 1.0909910202026
memory usage: 56000246912 in 1.0673208236694
memory usage: 57000247072 in 1.100662946701
memory usage: 58000247232 in 1.1454269886017
memory usage: 59000247392 in 1.4826681613922
memory usage: 60000247552 in 1.4601559638977
memory usage: 61000247712 in 1.1279101371765
memory usage: 62000247872 in 1.6794650554657
memory usage: 63000248032 in 1.1542959213257
memory usage: 64000248192 in 1.1795740127563
memory usage: 65000248864 in 1.1052439212799
memory usage: 66000249024 in 3.5257620811462
memory usage: 67000249184 in 1.1977369785309
memory usage: 68000249344 in 1.5571599006653
memory usage: 69000249504 in 1.4189839363098
memory usage: 70000249664 in 1.3921589851379
memory usage: 71000249824 in 1.2243919372559
memory usage: 72000249984 in 5.7582619190216
memory usage: 73000250144 in 1.2754249572754
memory usage: 74000250304 in 1.1398110389709
memory usage: 75000250464 in 1.0460000038147
memory usage: 76000250624 in 1.198970079422
memory usage: 77000250784 in 0.42643213272095
memory usage: 78000250944 in 1.287880897522
memory usage: 79000251104 in 1.2458920478821
memory usage: 80000251264 in 1.8381218910217
memory usage: 81000251424 in 1.351508140564
memory usage: 82000251584 in 1.191960811615
memory usage: 83000251744 in 1.2730159759521
memory usage: 84000251904 in 1.0563449859619
memory usage: 85000252064 in 1.3704440593719
memory usage: 86000252224 in 1.0953478813171
memory usage: 87000252384 in 1.137414932251
memory usage: 88000252544 in 1.1720921993256
memory usage: 89000252704 in 1.1054348945618
memory usage: 90000252864 in 1.1644630432129
memory usage: 91000253024 in 1.2039830684662
memory usage: 92000253184 in 1.063854932785
memory usage: 93000253344 in 2.9833469390869
memory usage: 94000253504 in 1.1828620433807
memory usage: 95000253664 in 0.62042808532715
memory usage: 96000253824 in 1.0658800601959
memory usage: 97000253984 in 1.4145469665527
PHP Fatal error:  Out of memory (allocated 97009008640) (tried to allocate 1000000001 bytes) in /root/test.php on line 9

real   2m3.682s
user   0m20.893s
sys   1m31.233s
Thu Apr 18 - 00:48:05



i'm pretty sure if you try to run that code in a swap on disk environment, you kill the system. I included the time stamps that come with my PS1.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
axl
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 507
Location: Romania

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

to be honest.

on the other hand I am considering and should be testing the idea of double compression. zram is one level of compression. zswap is another. I honestly dont know if I need both, or if they know about each other and compliment each other... I kept my eye on the idle cpu %. when you want it to be 90% or upwards it is ok.

and again to be honest, not all data is just zeroes. if you really want to see what happens just read files from distfiles as variables into memory until something crashes. it's one thing to read zeroes, whole another thing to read stuff that was previously compressed and cannot be compressed anymore. and put that forcefully into ram an see what happens.

I cannot honestly do that to my systems... just to test. It's like abusing on purpose when you know you don't have to.

I'm sure different people have different ideas about how to treat a system as a whole.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
axl
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 507
Location: Romania

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KiB Mem : 30878088 total, 17232164 free, 13192144 used, 453780 buff/cache
KiB Swap: 94371824 total, 79794848 free, 14576980 used. 17264384 avail Mem


I hour later. Do I trust my kernel to manage it all? I do!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Installing Gentoo All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum