Performance Question : Swap File on SSD

In the past I've stored my swap file on a non-system disk. Now, however, my system disk is an SSD and the competition between system swaps and Photoshop swaps should be reduced if not eliminated. At least, that's what I think. I have other physical hard drives, but I'm wondering if specifying one of them for the swap file buys anything over using the SSD.
Also, what the heck does the Camera Raw cache do to increase performance? This is all over the 'net and nobody explains why but they say it will improve performance of Photoshop and Lightroom. How do you calculate the best size for the cache?
Thanks
Steve

On the issue of killing the flash drive; at the risk of being redundant, allow me to quote myself:
So, what is the current consensus on the feasibility/advisability of using flash memory for swap? I've read about the limited write cycles of flash being an argument against using it for swap. But recent reading indicates to me that the limited write cycles problem applies mostly to older, smaller-capacity flash memory. Some come right out and say that, for larger-capacity flash memory, the life of the device is likely to exceed the amount of time your current computer will be useful (I think I've seen estimates in the range of 3-4 years life--minimum--for newer, higher-capacity flash memory).
Now that we've established that the life of the flash memory is not a significant issue in this discussion, we may move on to a consideration of why I am considering NOT buying RAM. I won't quote myself on that, but suffice to say that I already have pen drives and other flash memory laying around that could be easily pressed into service for such a project. Any discussion concerning issues I've not already addressed regarding RAM vs flash memory for the task at hand?
James

Similar Messages

SSD Performance Questions

I've just ordered a MBP 2.4Ghz with 7200rpm 750GB drive, I will be adding either a single 8GB memory stick (total of 10GB) or a 16GB kit. I'm looking for my first SSD use as a boot drive for OSX and potentially Win 7 in BootCamp and hope I can get some counsel on model selection and configuration.
I read that SSDs suffer a performance drop (sometimes significant) as the drive fills up. Also there are both 256GB and 240GB drives. Ideally I'd like to avoid the frustration associated with seeing performance drop and maximize my formatted capacity.
1) Are there models that maintain performance over time? Is there a specification that indicates how performance drops as the drive fills up?
2) Is there a performance difference (current / long-term) between 256 and 240GB drives?
3) Does an abundance of RAM improve performance and / or longevity?
4) How much space (if any) should be kept free for swap files in OSX / Windows?
5) With 240 / 256GB SSDs, how much usable space is available after formatting?
6) Is there a difference in performance based on file format NTFS vs. HPS+?
7) Do I need to be concerned about major name brands (Intel, Samsung, OCZ, Kingston, etc.) being incompatible with MBPs?
8) Are some SSDs easier to install / configure / maintain on a MBP than others?
9) Are there any issues I should be aware of regarding the installation or use of a SSD that would impact my MBP's warranty?
Based on performance, reliability and 5-year warranty, I've been attracted to the Intel 520. I've also read good reports on the Samsung 830. One review indicated that the 830 maintained performance over time while the 520 experienced a significantly greater drop. True?
I can buy either drive in the $330 range. Here on the forum I've read many recommendations for the OWC drives and support. For comparable performance and a 5-year warranty, it looks like the Extreme Pro would be the model to buy, however, at $460 it is 50% more expensive. Thoughts?
Thanks in advance! This is the kind of purchase that I can only make once every 5-years, so I really appreciate any help.
JD

kayakjunkie wrote:
I've just ordered a MBP 2.4Ghz with 7200rpm 750GB drive, I will be adding either a single 8GB memory stick (total of 10GB) or a 16GB kit.
Your performance with the large 16GB should outweigh any drawback the 7,200 RPM drive or even a 5,400 RPM drive unless you start swaping then the 7,200 shoud be fine enough.
The SSD is good for transfering large data sets off the machine, to another SSD, but little benefit on the same machine with most files as they are small so you don't see any benefit really in most day to day operations. If you had low RAM then the SSD would help with a faster memory swap. As you know SSD's wear out faster than hard drives.
I'm looking for my first SSD use as a boot drive for OSX and potentially Win 7 in BootCamp and hope I can get some counsel on model selection and configuration.
Here's the speed demon chart, note the fastest ones are smaller in capacity
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html
Again, unless your transfering large data to a external SSD via Thunderbolt on a constant basis (and can afford to replace the worn out SSD's) then a SSD as a boot drive really isn't worth it for most computers if you have a large amount of RAM.
It used to be with 32bit processors/OS , 3.5GB RAM limits, that having a fast boot drive mattered in day to day because of the faster memory swap, but not anymore. My 4GB with 5,400 RPM stock is fast enough, but I will be getting 16GB soon for my virtual machine OS's.
I read that SSDs suffer a performance drop (sometimes significant) as the drive fills up. Also there are both 256GB and 240GB drives. Ideally I'd like to avoid the frustration associated with seeing performance drop and maximize my formatted capacity.
Hard drives do this too because the files have to be broken up more to fit into tiny spaces.
Hard drives also suffer a bit past the 50% filled as the sectors get smaller.
I use my 750GB partitioned 50/50, A cloned to B so I can option boot either as I won't use the second 50% of the drive day to day as it's too slow for my tastes.
IMO 250GB is too small for a drive with Windows too, the fastest 500GB SSD would be better $$$. better balance of speed and onboard storage.
1) Are there models that maintain performance over time? Is there a specification that indicates how performance drops as the drive fills up?
2) Is there a performance difference (current / long-term) between 256 and 240GB drives?Not that I know of.
Not that I know of.
3) Does an abundance of RAM improve performance and / or longevity?
Yes, more RAM = less swapping to the SSD means it will last longer and run faster.
4) How much space (if any) should be kept free for swap files in OSX / Windows?
I would suggest 25% for a SSD should be free space, ideally 50% filled for a hard drive, but to 75% max is likely more realistic for most people.
6) Is there a difference in performance based on file format NTFS vs. HPS+?
You will have little choice of format for OS X or Windows, OS X needs HFS+ and Windows needs NTFS.
If you do a third partition (hard) then exFAT would likely be the best choice for both OS's to access.
7) Do I need to be concerned about major name brands (Intel, Samsung, OCZ, Kingston, etc.) being incompatible with MBPs?
8) Are some SSDs easier to install / configure / maintain on a MBP than others?
Not that I know of.
9) Are there any issues I should be aware of regarding the installation or use of a SSD that would impact my MBP's warranty?
Just don't break anything doing so, as one is allowed to replace the RAM/storage. However the warranty/AppleCare doesn't cover the newley added items of course.
http://eshop.macsales.com/installvideos/
Based on performance, reliability and 5-year warranty, I've been attracted to the Intel 520. I've also read good reports on the Samsung 830. One review indicated that the 830 maintained performance over time while the 520 experienced a significantly greater drop. True?
Performance isn't going to matter unless your dealing with large amounts of data on a constant basis, a long warranty is always good. But SSD's have no moving parts that I know of, so...easy to give a 5 year warranty. IMO.
Look here
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/
I can buy either drive in the $330 range. Here on the forum I've read many recommendations for the OWC drives and support. For comparable performance and a 5-year warranty, it looks like the Extreme Pro would be the model to buy, however, at $460 it is 50% more expensive. Thoughts?
OWC is good, but your basically doing all the work anyway so you can choose to install what you want if you find a faster/larger SSD someplace else.
You need to learn how Lion Recovery Partition works, there are no OS X install disks anymore, it'a all on a partition to boot to install Lion. If you remove the drive, you need to install Lion somehow again right?
Carbon Copy Cloner, clones your entire Lion and Lion Recovery Partition to a external drive, can option boot from it and it's the same thing. Reverse clone onto the new SSD.
Other info you will need.
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT4718
https://support.apple.com/kb/dl1433
http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/08/lion-recovery-disk-assistant-tool-makes-external- lion-boot-recovery-drives/
A option is you can choose is after you installed Windows in Bootcamp (as the machine won't boot a Windows disk from a external optical drive) on the SSD and used WinClone to clone Bootcamp for backup, is to replace the Superdrive with a kit and place the hard drive there for partitioning and storage.
This way the SSD stays unchanged and fast, the hard drive takes all the work of the users files, changes etc, places the wear and tear on that instead.
The Superdrive goes into a enclosure (sold with the kit) and is a external optical drive.
This modification will of course void your warranty/Applecare.
For more information, see Bmer (Dave Merten) over at MacOwnersSupportGroup as he has done this and knows all the tricks.

'Swap Files' Technical Question

1) I've read posts which state that using cache-deleting programs, like 'Yasu,' to clear 'Swap Files,' is not healthy for the OS. The argument goes that Swap Files should only be deleted while the system is in Single-User Mode, or with programs like 'AppleJack.'
But, other Posters state that Swap Files can be safely deleted from a fully-active OS, utilizing cache-clearing programs, like Yasu. Using an all-in-one program like Yasu is more convenient, but I don't want to incrementally damage the OS.
Does anyone know which approach is true?
2) Also, I've noted that all the cache-deleting programs out there use a single 'Restart' to set things going again. But, some Posters state that Restarts are necessary after 'Update Prebinding', and then again after 'Optimizing the System'.
The argument, as I understand it, is that the databases won't recognize each other's new information unless one of them is not only rebuilt, but also visible for the other to see; and apparently, only a Restart makes the new information available. At least that is the argument.
Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks.

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I see the example I gave revealed an error. The technical point I'm trying to get at is if multiple core-database deletions can be performed sequentially, without having to do a restart in-between them.
The example I gave, regarding 'Update Prebinding,' obscured the question, because Prebinding, as you point out, is not viewed as relevant to the daily operation of the latest versions of the Macintosh OS. I think a better example would be to contrast the information that's rebuilt, and under what circumstances, between the two functions: 'Clear Directory Services Cache' and 'Rebuild Launch Services Database'.
In essence, I'm trying to discover if rebuilt core-databases recognize one another, without having to Restart between each database's deletion.
Most Mac home users don't care about this; but, out of intellectual curiosity, I'm looking to understand how much self-healing has been built into the Mac OS, versus Windows.
Thanks for your time, BDAqua.

Performance: swap space vs. swap file?

After install of Red Hat Linux ES 3.0 UL3, I found that the swap space is set to only 2 GB. The SA claims that to increase the swap space, he must reinstall Linux because the partition is full.
Another option would be to add a swap file to a free partition.
Are there any issues with having swap files vs. swap space?

You should be able to use the free partition as swap space as well, without reinstall of Linux.
More information is available from the Redhat website :
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-8.0-Manual/custom-guide/s1-swap-adding.html

Fusion Drive & Swap files

From time to time on my new Mac Mini with 1 TB Fusion Drive, I am getting the following error: "Your Mac OS X startup disk has no more space available for application memory."
This would indicate an issue with being able to write swap files/virtual memory. If I understand how the Fusion Drive works, the virtual memory is stored on the 128 GB SSD portion. The SSD is full, considering I have 650 GB free on the 1.128 TB Fusion Drive.
Seems like a CoreStorage issue, as it's apparently not leaving enough space on the SSD for the swap files after the computer has been run for a while. I have 16 GB RAM in the Mini.
Restarting the computer solves the issue, although I often use the Mini in remote sessions and when this error comes up, performance on the Mini tends to be so sluggish that sometimes remote connections time out or drop, making it hard to even be able to restart the computer.

Your problem is excessive swapping of data between physical memory and virtual memory.
That can happen for two reasons:
You have a long-running process with a memory leak (i.e., a bug), or
You don't have enough memory installed for your usage pattern.
Tracking down a memory leak can be difficult, and it may come down to a process of elimination. In Activity Monitor, select All Processes from the menu in the toolbar, if not already selected. Click the heading of the Real Mem column in the process table twice to sort the table with the highest value at the top. If you don't see that column, select
View ▹ Columns ▹ Real Memory
from the menu bar.
If one process (excluding "kernel_task") is using much more memory than all the others, that could be an indication of a leak. A better indication would be a process that continually grabs more and more memory over time without ever releasing it.
If you don't have an obvious memory leak, your options are to install more memory (if possible) or to run fewer programs simultaneously.
The next suggestion is only for users familiar with the shell. For a more precise, but potentially misleading, test, run the following command:
sudo leaks -nocontext -nostacks process | grep total
where process is the name of a process you suspect of leaking memory. Almost every process will leak some memory; the question is how much, and especially how much the leak increases with time. I can’t be more specific. See the leaks(1) man page and the Apple developer documentation for details:
Memory Usage Performance Guidelines: About the Virtual Memory System

Moving swap file, any advantage?

Hi all,
I have a late 2008 unibody mac book pro with sl 10.6.4. I have a custom setup:
optibay with OCZ vertex 2 120gb PRIMARY DRIVE
momentus xt 500gb secondary drive
Given the alleged problems that ssds encounter after a while without trim support I was wondering if moving the swap file to the xt would help. I have three questions:
1) Would it actually help?
2) Would performance be worse because I am moving the swap file to a slower drive?
3) How do you move a swap file?
Thanks!

VM is merely memory reserved by the system, not necessarily used as swap space. So you will always have a sizeable VM showing in the monitor application, since it allocates the page file space without necessarily using it.
The thing to watch is the page outs, as you realize. That is actual data being written to disk. Or just go into private/var/vm and see how many files and how much space is being used.
Ordinarily, it only makes sense to move swap space if you are frequently using a lot of actual swap file space, and if you have a substantially faster drive to move it to. I don't really know how well a SSD drive will handle intensive swap thrashing, so it may not be an issue, or, perhaps you'll still get the best performance with it instead of the slower hard drive.
If you do decide to move it, be sure to have a reliable up-to-date backup available too. As I mentioned, if the move is not done correctly, down the road a bit after booting you may find yourself with a spectacular failure and all sorts of data corruption (orphaned symbolic links are often very bad things).
I would say monitor your VM use and system performance for a bit, especially once you start working your system as hard as you think you will normally be doing. Then, as long as you have a backup to go to, you can try the alternative and see if it even makes any difference (I'm highly skeptical that it will, but I don't honestly know).
Message was edited by: Michael Black

Is it safe to have the swap file on a separate partition?

I've just bought a second hand MBP 2012 (9,2 I think) with a 500GB hard drive and Yosemite pre-installed. Not going to get into a debate about it here, but I want to regress to Lion or Mountain Lion until Apple improves Yosemite's bugs and software manufacturers improve compatibility. However, I wouldn't mind also getting to know Yosemite. So my plan is to partition my drive and keep Yosemite on one partition, have Lion on the other, and use Lion for day to day stuff for the time being.
Obviously this involves a shrinking hard drive. I have an image of Lion's installer on another partition in case I lose the DVD (which happens to me far too often), so at the moment my partition scheme breaks down as 10GB for Mountain Lion's installer, 100GB for Yosemite, and the remaining 390 (roughly) for Mountain Lion.
Since the Yosemite partition is quite small, would it work if I made a symlink from /private/var/vm to the same folder on the Lion partition? Both folders will never be in use at the same time, so I can't think of any reason this wouldn't work - which would mean that the slippage and the swap files would all be located on the bigger partition, and the small size of my Yosemite partition wouldn't be a problem. Obviously when the time comes I would get rid of the Mountain Lion partition altogether and make the Yosemite one a lot bigger, but would that be an ok setup for now? Would it degrade performance for any reason if the swap files were on a separate partition?
Anyone ever tried this?

Thanks for the answer. The project is stored, saved, or burned to a DVD.
When I put the burnt DVD in my "E" drive (or DVD player/burner) installed in my computer it comes up as a my project in "E" drive.
It is a complete Primire Pro CS4 project. I has all my edits and effects just like it does when I open it from my HHD.
I can put the DVD in my wives computer and it shows it is there but it will not open because she does not have CS4 installed.
So it is not a movie. It is an exact copy of what the project looks like on my HHD.
I can edit on it and do everything I did from the HHD copy.
Hope this helps. Please feel free to question my responces.
I really do want to clean up my HHD and start over with a single file. Hopefully gererated by the DVD.
It seems like I could delete my files. It would be like I made this copy and sent it to you to do a final edit and add menus. You would not have the origional files on your HHD.
After you loaded to you could then send it to your HHD and do whatever - Right?
Jim

Changing swap file location on tray-loader iMacs

This is not a question, but something I discovered that makes my old tray-loader iMac (the oldest iMac models) run Mac OS X much better.
As you may know, these oldest iMacs have an 8GB size limit on the boot volume. The largest stock drive on these iMacs was 6GB. That means if your upgraded hard drive is larger than 8GB, it must be partition so that the first partition is under 8GB (7.78GB on my iMac), and it must be the boot partition where the OS is installed (whether it's Mac OS X or 9).
In my case, I have a roomy 120GB hard drive (I believe the useable limit on these iMacs is 128GB). The first partition is just under 8GB, the second partition is the rest of the space, about 104GB. I have used every trick out there to move files (such as the iTunes music folder and most of my user/documents files) off to the second partition, to make free space on the boot partition as large as possible. So I have 3.5GB free on my 8GB boot partition. This is about 40% of the volume's total space so it seems pretty good, until you realize that most recent Macs have much more than the TOTAL 8GB I have, as free space on the boot volume. Mac OS X was just not designed to work well with small boot volumes...
Mac OS X uses the free space on the boot volume for its virtual memory "swap file." Considering these old iMacs max out at 512MB of RAM, virtual memory is being used quite a bit. But since space on the boot volume is very limited, low RAM and lack of free space can lead to performance issues. Here's what I observed. When I initially started up my iMac, I had about 3.5GB of free space. Over time, as I used more and more apps, that free space would diminish until I had only about 600MB remaining (as reported by a Finder window). At the same time, I noticed performance getting bogged down and more "chugging" sounds coming from the hard-working hard drive.
I've known about changing location of the swap file, but never tried it until recently. During the Mac OS X boot process, the Mac sets the location of the swap file. By default, the swap file resides on the boot volume (I believe most other Unix-based systems use a dedicated "swap partition" for the swap file). Since most recent Macs have large drives set up as one partition (and there is plenty of free space), and since many users have upgraded their RAM (and virtual memory is not as critical), swap file location is usually not an issue, and there is certainly no need to change the swap file location. However, on my iMac with an 8GB limit on the boot volume and 512MB of RAM, it made a noticeable difference.
I found one set of procedures on the web that was much better than the others I found for changing the location of the swap file.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~bayer/OSX/swapfile/
On this page, there are two choices for Panther users. I used the one that works for both Panther and Tiger, because it appeared to me to be more straightforward. The author intentionally keeps the instructions somewhat technical to discourage users who are not technically inclined. I don't consider myself to be too "geeky," but I can follow instructions and type a few commands in Terminal.
After I changed the swap file location to a large mostly empty volume, I noticed much better performance when I have many large apps open at the same time. Performance no longer degrades over time, and the free space on my boot volume remains a constant 3.6GB.
The reason for this post is to share this information. Some users of these old iMacs may be noticing the same issues I had. This is a possible solution. However, if everything is OK with your set up, there is no reason to change the swap file location. If you try it, be sure to take the usual data backup precautions.
If anyone else has experience with changing swap file location, please post your comments here.

Problem has been solved:
background.setCapability(Background.ALLOW_IMAGE_WRITE);Thanks everybody for reading this :)

Swap partition VS Swap File system

Hi everyone!!
I am using Oracle 11g (enterprise edition) on linux redhat 5.5 . At present, we have 12G RAM and swap partition of 2G. I know that we should have swap area of 6GB as per RAM. But we are unable to create new swap partition or resize existing. So I want to know is should I create new swap file of 4Gb that can be used as swap area in addition to existing swap partition of 2Gb. So that total swap area will be of 6G
( 2G swap space + 4G swap file).
1. Will it be meaningful or not ?
2. Which one is better among swap partition and swap file ?
3. Will swap file cause performance degradation due to incompatibility between them ?
Thanks & Regards
Tushar Lapani

This is a 100 percent Unix question and has nothing to with Oracle RDBMS.
Please close this question here and post it in any Unix forum.
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

Improve Flash perormance by increasing Cache, page file with SSD or USB3?

The way I use flash demands a lot of memory.
I have a huge number of vector shape on stage and keep making changes to them and it gets flash to stutter and delay a lot. (I did try using illustrator and CorelDraw for that purpose but they simply don`t answer my needs in that regard aas flash does)
Of course my 64 bit 18 GB ram is to no avail in this case.
I noticed that increasing Cache and page file does help.
I`m on windows 7 and currently have cache initially at 5 GB and max: 30 Gb and distributed between various drives.
I would like to allocate more harddisk space for cahce. My questions are :
1.Is there a limit in size beyond which Cahce will simply not be used by flash?
2.What would be more efficient, a 200GB SSD or a 2 TB USB 3?
Thanks

3.2 GB Ram , it being a 32bit application
That's a ton of RAM. RAM management is also a part of application coding. Your library may contain a ton of items but the only items in RAM are the items necessary for your current context. Cache will ensue only if there's free memory. Your file size is so small I'm only left to believe you have an excessively complex timeline with a huge number of instances alive at once, or your CPU and RAM are old. Otherwise, you should get great performance. What are your specs?
Most of what I'm getting at with vectors versus bitmaps is vectors require processing, bitmaps don't. Bitmaps are a block of memory and operate at RAM speed. The bogging you might experience is most likely the CPU and RAM strain from processing simply too many (possibly complex) vectors all at once, but a quick look at your performance monitor would tell you that.
When vectors shape are involved, RAM usage has nothing to do with file size
If you have a 1.2MB vector, it's going to take quite a bit of CPU and RAM strain to process it. If it's a 30kb vector, far, far less processing. Although 500 instances of that 30kb vector will. So file size and instance count do directly correlate to the processing performance.
I`m running SSD as C
Great, I do as well. There's no speed increase to page to a different drive when your FLA is 3~4MB. You have the rest of the drives space to page to. Unless you simply don't have enough space left after OS+apps to feel comfortable with a 5GB page. Perhaps you should let the OS manage the pagefile. Setting a final size used to be a performance trick but the OS will give you a good idea how much you're actually paging. That would answer your question on if you even need a whole drive dedicated to it.
I'd get a second SSD just to have for a multitude of other reasons. And definitely a RAID1 mirror on the OS drive . Be careful with SSD RAIDs, they're still not in what the IT industry would consider trustable territory. I have 2 SSDs in RAID0 on my home gaming rig but that's because all my important files are on other drives, and I have a mirror image of the OS if something fails.
Edit:
jlo1one~ On the right side of the screen (open your browser wide enough) there is a "Stop email notifications" link.

[Solved] Do I need a swap partition /swap file?

Hello Arch Community.
I want to install Arch Linux on my Aspire V5-573G Notebook with 8GB RAM and a 120GB 840 Evo SSD from Samsung. So my question is, do I actually need a swap partition / swap file? I read the arch-wiki pages about swap and suspend-to-disk / suspend-to-ram, and the only thing thats obviously profiting from / needing a swap partition is suspend-to-disk, no other things are mentioned in this regard. Is a swap partition in any other way important?
Thanks in advance.
Last edited by Oedner (2013-12-21 12:41:19)

headkase wrote:Another question to ask is what will happen if you don't have a swap file and run out of memory? In that case the Linux kernel will randomly kill process' until there is enough memory again. Obviously that isn't very stable but that is what it will do.
No. The OOM killer is pretty darn tweaked these days and usually(!) kills the actual perpetrator. The alternative—disabling memory overcommitting and answering memory requests with an out-of-memory error—can result in unforeseen problems as well: What if it a system process is trying to allocate a few bytes for some random string, and what if said system process isn't equipped to handle ENOMEM gracefully and crashes, because the default policy on Linux is to overcommit and never answer with out-of-memory errors?
Just trying to play devil's advocate here. I'm not happy with the OOM killer either and I'd rather have a deterministic solution to out-of-memory situations, but I realize that it's probably not an easy problem to solve.

Error help- "the operation could not be performed ...file... doesn't exist"?

Hi,
I am experiencing some probmels with ICE and can't find a reason for why. I was able to edit the pages on the site through ICE about a month ago, but the client just let me know they can't do anything for any page. I also can't do anything for any pages I was able to previously edit. Basicall, I get this error message after being able to log in, edit page, and click save draft/ changes I get the following error:
"The operation could not be performed because the file can't be accessed or doesn't exist..."
I have looked extensively at these threads: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/444356?tstart=60
and http://forums.adobe.com/thread/432559?tstart=0
From that I have tried the following:
Made sure passive FTP was working properly
Verified FTP Dreamweaver connection with same FTP account: all is good and i can change and put the pages in question on the server.
Verified tags in page (I think I have most pages correct.- although I know some are still not div tagged correct, but don't think thee issues are related.)
verified that the directory settings on the adobe account (which is the root) is only "/"
Tried editing in both Safari and FF and the client tried in IE and FF (all most recent versions I think)
No progress has been made. Actually now my adobe account for managing my sites is not allowing me to manage "settings" for this site either. The tab is there but doesn't have the word settings on it and therefore I can't click it anymore
Here is the site: www.extremecommunitymakeover.org. I know for sure I WAS able to edit the index, get involved, and contact us pages a moth ago and now I get the error.
Also- another maybe related problem is that I can't actually duplicate or create new pages via ICE. Everything I try to name the new page gets kicked back and the dialog box says error says the "file extension is invalid".
So- I seem to have a couple problems possibly all related to each other and your help would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Sean

Here's the setup on the two machines in particular...
Machine #1:
XP Pro
Was IE7, now latest FF
No antivirus
Firewall – Windows Firewall, Downloaded AVG free trial ver., but not installed
Machine #2:
XP Pro
IE7
Again, No AV… had Kaspersky… but uninstalled it
Windows Firewall
Maybe that could be of some assistance... not seeing anything that could possibly block or inhibit the ICE. Each machine is independent of the other, separate networks, different locations, JavaScript enabled, no cookie blockers, etc.
....STUMPED!!!

Swap Partition Vs Swap file

Hi everyone!!
I am using Oracle 11g (enterprise edition) on linux redhat 5.5 . At present, we have 12G RAM and swap partition of 2G. I know that we should have swap area of 6GB as per RAM. But we are unable to create new swap partition or resize existing. So I want to know is should I create new swap file of 4Gb that can be used as swap area in addition to existing swap partition of 2Gb. So that total swap area will be of 6G
( 2G swap space + 4G swap file).
1. Will it be meaningful or not ?
2. Which one is better among swap partition and swap file ?
3. Will swap file cause performance degradation due to incompatibility between them ?
Thanks & Regards
Tushar Lapani

Swap is no substitute for RAM. It provides a fail-safe mechanism and allows the kernel to handle active memory allocation more efficiently.
Your requirement or conclusion about swap space may or may not be reasonable, depending on your desired configuration. As a rule of thumb, swap space is usually configured twice the RAM if you use 8 GB or less and equal the amount of RAM if you have 16 GB or more. If you have 64 GB of RAM, it does however not make sense to have 64 GB of swap space, because the performance degration should you ever need that much swap space will be very bad.
A swap file as opposed to a swap partition has some security and safety concerns, and some performance overhead because of using a file system, but it can be feasible. It depends on your I/O use and hardware.
However, you will probably want to configure your Oracle database to use kernel Hugepages using ASMM instead of AMM for best performance and efficient memory use. Kernel Hugepages, unlike POSIX shared memory (/dev/shm) used by AMM, will be pre-allocated at system startup and cannot use swap space.
Message was edited by: Dude!
Until kernel 2.4 it was considered that a swap partition is faster than a file, but with the improvements of kernel 2.6, the performances is almost the same. A swap file has the advantage that it can be easier re-sized or removed than a swap partition, but it can get fragmented or deleted by accident. For best performance it should also be located at the outer parts (beginning) of the disk.

Swap file locations

Hi,
A few questions regarding an upgrade to ecc 6.0.
What is the recomended swap files locations - on the server's disks or on the storage disks (connected to the server of course).
and what is the recomended swap files quantity if i have 8 GB of ram and what is the recomended splited files quantity?
Regards,
Moshe

This depends on your operating system, whether your´re on 32- or 64-bit.
Usually it´s best to have the swap space on a separate disk isolated from OS, database and application.
Markus

Swap file in use after 12 minutes uptime

Hi
I noticed this a little bit of a strange behavior recently. Once I power my Mac up, the amount of free memory is around 1.34 GB, as I don't have many startup items. Then I launch Skype and torrent client (µTorrent or Transmission) and wait about 10-12 minutes - the amount of inactive memory becomes almost half of total, 20-30 MB free, and swap file is already in use. I mean is that normal with total physical RAM of 2 GB? As far as I know the Unused memory is used for apps I quit not to reallocate it once I launch it again. Nothing launched - nothing to keep unused, right? And swap file is in use for a reason I don't quite well understand. I mean I got the idea behind virtual memory, but this behavior is something that haven't been there before. Just in case - I "Erase & Install"-ed the system last week, so it is pretty "clean".
Also the screenshot of my iStat pro widget to illustrate the situation.

Swapping happens because there is more demand for memory than you have, and some modified pages have been sitting idle longer than other pages that are in use.
If you think you have too little memory for the application set you are using, then do the following and find out. Launch Applications -> Utilities -> Terminal and enter the command:
sar -g 60 100
This will tell you the pageout information every 60 seconds for 100 minutes (adjust 60 and 100 to suit your tastes).
If you mostly have zeros or very low numbers, then you do not have a serious memory problem. If you have an occasional burst of pageouts, but the rest of the time it is zero, you do not have a memory problem. However, if you have sustained pageouts, especially when you notice a performance slow down, then you could benefit from more memory, or run applications that are less memory intensive (or if running too many concurrent applications that you are not really using, quit a few).
Programmers tend to write applications that consume as much memory as they like without concern for how much memory you actually have. In some cases they have have development systems with a lot more memory than you do, so they don't even notice that they are consuming a lot of memory. This is speaking as a programmer that started life writting code on 80 column punched cards and running them on systems with 8192 bytes of memory

Performance Question : Swap File on SSD

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for