An unresponsive system is not a slowdown. You keep ignoring that.
>> You assume that leaked memory is inactive and goes to swap. This is not true.
> At best, you can say "it's not always true".
You skipped my sentence that was specifying the scope when "it's not always true", and now you pretend that I'm making a categorical generalized statement. This is a silly attempt at a "strawman".
>> It means that the system wasn't out of memory yet.
> Of course it wasn't out of memory. It had lots of swap. That's the whole point of providing that swap - so you can rescue it!
Swap is not RAM. When the free RAM is below the low watermark, the kernel switches to direct reclaim and blocks tasks that require free memory pages. Blocking of tasks happens regardless of swap. If you are able to log in and fork a new process, the system is not below the low watermark.
>> When it is unresponsive, you won't be able to enter commands into an already open shell.
> Again that's just plain wrong.
You are in denial.
> Provided no new work is arriving (time for a cup of coffee?) it will get done, and the thrashing will end.
This is false. A system can stay unresponsive much longer than a cup of coffee. There is no guarantee that the thrashing will end in a reasonable time.
> even Debian will give you twice RAM for small systems.
> The people who decided on that design choice aren't following some folk law on they read in some internet echo chamber.
That 2x RAM rule is exactly that - an old folk law. You can find it in SunOS/AIX/etc manuals or Usenet FAQs from the 80s and early 90s, before Linux existed.
> They've used real data.
You're hallucinating like an LLM. No one did any research or measurements to justify that 2x rule in Linux.
An unresponsive system is not a slowdown. You keep ignoring that.
>> You assume that leaked memory is inactive and goes to swap. This is not true.
> At best, you can say "it's not always true".
You skipped my sentence that was specifying the scope when "it's not always true", and now you pretend that I'm making a categorical generalized statement. This is a silly attempt at a "strawman".
>> It means that the system wasn't out of memory yet.
> Of course it wasn't out of memory. It had lots of swap. That's the whole point of providing that swap - so you can rescue it!
Swap is not RAM. When the free RAM is below the low watermark, the kernel switches to direct reclaim and blocks tasks that require free memory pages. Blocking of tasks happens regardless of swap. If you are able to log in and fork a new process, the system is not below the low watermark.
>> When it is unresponsive, you won't be able to enter commands into an already open shell.
> Again that's just plain wrong.
You are in denial.
> Provided no new work is arriving (time for a cup of coffee?) it will get done, and the thrashing will end.
This is false. A system can stay unresponsive much longer than a cup of coffee. There is no guarantee that the thrashing will end in a reasonable time.
> even Debian will give you twice RAM for small systems.
> The people who decided on that design choice aren't following some folk law on they read in some internet echo chamber.
That 2x RAM rule is exactly that - an old folk law. You can find it in SunOS/AIX/etc manuals or Usenet FAQs from the 80s and early 90s, before Linux existed.
> They've used real data.
You're hallucinating like an LLM. No one did any research or measurements to justify that 2x rule in Linux.