- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: Can it be that our swap and dump device have n...
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-13-2010 05:15 AM
тАО09-13-2010 05:15 AM
Can it be that our swap and dump device have not optimum sizes
I looked this up and I was adviced to analyze our swapinfo
At first glance I think our swap lvol2=1gb (too small) and dump lvol10=8gb (too large)
Is it a good idea to change that around so that swap is on lvol10 and dump on lvol2
I would like to add secondary swap but the SAN space is pre-planned and allocated. Would like to avoid budget spend for this year. So above exampl. would give me good fix for a while, right.
see output of our swapinfo -tam and lvlnboot -v
bxud0022:/root#swapinfo -tam
Mb Mb Mb PCT START/ Mb
TYPE AVAIL USED FREE USED LIMIT RESERVE PRI NAME
dev 1024 254 770 25% 0 - 1 /dev/vg00/lvol2
dev 8192 502 7690 6% 0 - 1 /dev/vg00/lvol10
reserve - 2138 -2138
memory 8161 3366 4795 41%
total 17377 6260 11117 36% - 0 -
bxud0022:/root#lvlnboot -v
Boot Definitions for Volume Group /dev/vg00:
Physical Volumes belonging in Root Volume Group:
/dev/dsk/c3t0d0s2 (0/4/1/0.0.0.0.0) -- Boot Disk
Boot: lvol1 on: /dev/dsk/c3t0d0s2
Root: lvol3 on: /dev/dsk/c3t0d0s2
Swap: lvol2 on: /dev/dsk/c3t0d0s2
Dump: lvol10 on: /dev/dsk/c3t0d0s2, 0
thx
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-13-2010 05:27 AM
тАО09-13-2010 05:27 AM
Re: Can it be that our swap and dump device have not optimum sizes
Pete
Pete
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-13-2010 05:42 AM
тАО09-13-2010 05:42 AM
Re: Can it be that our swap and dump device have not optimum sizes
I am confused by the apparent conflicting output of swapinfo -tam and lvlnboot -v and entry in /etc/fstab
In fstab it suggests that lvol10 is my swap, while lvlnboot -v says it is dump. Is there a dual usage , so it is swap anyway ?
How can I measure if I need secondary swap and how much I should need for sec. swap?
# See fstab(4) and sam(1M) for further details on configuring devices.
/dev/vg00/lvol3 / vxfs delaylog 0 1
/dev/vg00/lvol1 /stand vxfs tranflush 0 1
/dev/vg00/lvol10 ... swap defaults 0 0
/dev/vg00/lvol4 /opt vxfs delaylog 0 2
/dev/vg00/lvol5 /tmp vxfs delaylog 0 2
/dev/vg00/lvol6 /usr vxfs delaylog 0 2
/dev/vg00/lvol7 /var vxfs delaylog 0 2
/dev/vg00/lvol8 /home vxfs delaylog 0 2
/dev/vg00/lvol9 /var/adm/crash vxfs delaylog 0 2
thx
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-13-2010 06:24 AM
тАО09-13-2010 06:24 AM
Re: Can it be that our swap and dump device have not optimum sizes
(by the way a lot of bull is being spread about memory and swap)
http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=1344865
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-13-2010 06:25 AM
тАО09-13-2010 06:25 AM
Re: Can it be that our swap and dump device have not optimum sizes
I would be more interested in why it's being utilized at all. Try running vmstat 1 20 and taking a look at the po column. A high po value indicates a log of page-outs and that indicates a lack of memory, not a need for more swap.
Pete
Pete
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-13-2010 07:14 AM
тАО09-13-2010 07:14 AM
Re: Can it be that our swap and dump device have not optimum sizes
This is the better itrc forum reference. ;)
http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=1436201
And your system is actually "almost good" configured in a "swap/dump kind of way".
The thread above will also answer why lvol10 should also be the largest one.
So yes, lvol10 will also be used for swap reasons, the entry in lvlnboot -v, just means that when a crashdump needs to be saved, the system will be using lvol10 instead of "standard" lvol2.
For the rest, the lvol10 is actually a bit to small for saving a full crashdump, you need total physical memory, 10gb in this case, + 1Gbyte to be sure, so a 11gb lvol10 instead of the current 8gb lvol10.
And adding a extra 3gbyte to lvol10, could also satisfy the extra swap reservation demands the applications have.
Greetz,
Chris