On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Ronald KA4INM Youvan wrote:
> > Not what I expected. The machine had 64m of ram, I increased it to 160m
> > but now X is even SLOWER. Any idea of what I need to change?
>
> I think your swap partition is suppose to grow if your RAM grows,
I think a rough estimate for swap size was "n*RAM size", but I don't see
why swap should be made larger just because RAM got larger. If anything,
some of the data that would have been swapped out _won't_ be, further
reducing swap use.
Just for comparison:
[eben@pc eben]$ free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 775172 767148 8024 0 55600 549324
-/+ buffers/cache: 162224 612948
Swap: 401616 135288 266328
[eben@pc eben]$ uptime
10:36pm up 16 days, 10:09, 3 users, load average: 0.06, 0.03, 0.00
Note swap use (135 MB) and RAM size (768 MB).
Is it possible the firmware sensed the capabilities of the RAM, and the
new RAM had lower speed (or whatever) than the old, so it brought
everything down to its speed?
There was some deal a while back where some BIOSes would only cache the
first 64 MB of RAM, so if you went past that (a prodigous amount of RAM in
those days IIRC), it would be uncached. Net effect, more RAM gets you a
slower computer. Could that be the problem?
-- -eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar An ASCII character walks into a bar and orders a double. "Having a bad day?" asks the barman. "Yeah, I have a parity error," replies the ASCII character. The barman says, "Yeah, I thought you looked a bit off." -- Skud----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:20:56 EDT