Quote:
|
I've only 4G on my RazPi. I use a lightweight WM (XFCE) and it's generally ok. With Zoom under box64, a lot of libs are processed and held in ram, and I need 6G. Does your swap show in df -h? If not, it's not mounted, or might be puny. Here's how I made my swap file
|
Quote:
But you are (possibly) using the "bad unity" of measure, that conflicts with the International System of Units (ISU). See what i said in the #8 post, in this thread. Since you are using something derived from Debian, i think you will have the same "details" in the free command. It is a bit offtopic for the thread, but i think it has its importance. Do a few commands to see, show us, and i show you my output here, in the good computer: $ free -h # Use the shorter 3 digits unity closer to each value total used free shared buff/cache available Mem.: 15Gi 10Gi 2,1Gi 1,7Gi 3,0Gi 3,3Gi Swap: 15Gi 717Mi 15Gi $ free -b # Use bytes (B) unity for all values total used free shared buff/cache available Mem.: 16690577408 11274518528 2184806400 1822777344 3231252480 3547979776 Swap: 17082347520 751828992 16330518528 $ free --si # Use I.S.U. units total used free shared buff/cache available Mem.: 16299392 10915508 2215820 1792592 3168064 3547052 Swap: 16681980 734208 15947772 $ See the difference? If we use letters k, M, G, T, etc. to count computing related things, there is ambiguity. And companies use this "detail" to sell us less than we think. To buy, we receive a "16 gigabytes" (I. S. U. things) memory. But what it really has is actually "15,544 gigabytes" (1024 power), or correctly writing and saying: 15,544 GiB or 15,544 gibibytes (fifteen gibibytes and five hundred and fourty for thousandths ). |
Not sure what this will prove, but here they are, (I normally use free -m, so have included it also).
Code:
keith@msi:~$ free -m |
So you're using 1 Gig of ram and have 1.5 Gig free besides caches and that's why there's no swap usage. Linux is very efficient with memory. Until I got box64, I never used swap on my RazPi.
The Pi is really slow - period. Arm have much better 64 bit cores than the A-72, but they must be overpriced, so everyone doing things on the cheap gets the A-53 or A-72. Firefox sucks also. Palemoon or Chromium are better. |
All I'm reading here is that a computer with less RAM is becoming slower than one with more RAM once the swap starts to be used. Isn't that to be expected? Surely the one with less RAM has more of the current, in use, programs and data in swap so finds it slower to access those?
When I have experimented with filling RAM to see what happens (I have no swap) I find that once RAM is full the machine does not slow down it simply starts killing programs to free RAM for the "most important" so I don't think a lack of memory in and of itself causes slowness just the actual inability to use as much RAM. |
I use slarm64, not debian. Debian for Pi gets mixed reviews, and you don't get answers. Run 'df-h', 'sensors', and 'free -h' again when it's very slow and post results. Debian just don't care. It's not their distro.
Also run htop. You can see where memory & cpu are being used. If it's overheating, the Pi can slow drastically, and switch cores off, which affects performance. If you want to try slarm64, there's a forum here under distributions and a RazPi 3&4 thread with links to the binary images. It's my choice of the Slackware Arm ports. |
Quote:
Now, about the comparison of using ISU or not, the difference (in absolute byte numbers) is bigger for bigger numbers. See this "table" with 3 columns and several lines: Code:
IS unit 1 B = 1 byte So, when we buy a disk with "1TB" of space, you may be thinking you are getting almost 100 GiB more than what it actually has! And when you use the argument "-m" for free, you are always getting numbers being showed in MiB. They are in ISU mibibytes. So, the number of bytes of each number you see, should be obtained when you multiply it by 2^20 (which is 1 MiB). Is this clear? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The fact you're not seeing processes being killed means you're not exhausting your swap and RAM, and the system is behaving as it should, it's just the swap you are using is slowing your system. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
My "disk of bad" here has a lot of free space (around 213GiB). The swap is huge (64GiB, and it is never used, i barely see it in the system monitor graph, seen all the time), so the system should (probably should, this is a guess, a thought of mine) not worry to split data to store into smaller pieces, to fit into fragmented space, or moving data to make free space have bigger continuous areas. |
Quote:
|
I'm seeing posts here which is crazy. @decdec0, the dictionary is the only place you see 'success' come before 'work.'
sure windows slows. Magazines write about windows, but we're fixing a linux problem. Linux is very well designed. I had a chance to obseve my 3.7G being overloaded. It filled up to 3.4-3.5G, and then started filling swap. I'll bet you're not using swap. It could be: Chips overheating; dodgy disk partitions; a kernel problem; a very slow network; library incompatabilities, to name just a few. You won't try anything, so how do we know? Check those areas out. Don't waffle but give us information in short diagnostic posts. |
Quote:
I will try this starting list, for now. I have already checked how to disable swap, I will just prepare a few details to avoid losing anything, in the case of the system killing running programs. A problem of very slow network should not be the problem, I think. The network for these 2 computers is the same: both connected with a cable to the same modem (and it receives data with a coaxial cable, from the network company). I would see the slowness in the other computer, I think. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31 AM. |