On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:15:42 +0100
Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Miroslav Suchý
> Dne 1.6.2015 v 16:58 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
>> And a lot of swap disk can cause the IO issues that you mention and
>> ultimately lead to performance problems.
>> What package set did you test this against?
> 6th paragraph - answer to both questions.
Blogs are great but it's also TL;DR .... sometimes bits here are
Kernel isn't a major issue compared to others. I'd like to see how
well it works for things like java, eclipse, libreoffice.
To add some info, current configurations:
Type / Memory / swap:
arm / 4gb / 4gb
buildvm / 10gb / 2gb
buildhw / 20gb / 0gb
The arm builders have 300GB drives.
The buildvm's are on an iscsi lun and each has 150GB allocated. The lun
is 4.5TB, and there's 650gb or so free on it.
The buildhw's have 2 300GB drives in a raid, so 300 usable.
So, on the arm and buildhw's we could add a 50GB swap probibly at the
cost of the base / being down to 240-250gb.
On the buildvm's we could only add 25GB or so, unless we increased the
space (which we may be able to do down the road, but cannot now).
The thing I find odd about this is that the linux kernel caching
doesn't seem to be a win. Shouldn't it cache buildroot and such in
memory anyhow? Or why is tmpfs performing so much better?
We could also look at testing in staging and gather more data.