Sponsored Content
Full Discussion: swap
Operating Systems Solaris swap Post 302648447 by jlliagre on Wednesday 30th of May 2012 01:13:43 AM
Old 05-30-2012
All your allocated memory (~43 GB) is fitting in RAM (you should tell how much RAM you have and how it is used) so your swap area is currently completely free (no pages are stored there). However, a part of RAM+SWAP is reserved (~34 GB) to guarantee future potential use (Solaris doesn't overcommit memory unlike Linux and others). The reserved memory explains the discrepancy.
 

10 More Discussions You Might Find Interesting

1. UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

Swap

When i re-updated my system i set my swap at 500 MB. I have 256 in ram and have never even gone into the 250 mb of swap that i had originally configured. How do I reduce the swap? (3 Replies)
Discussion started by: macdonto
3 Replies

2. UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

About swap

Is it really so that if swap will be located in the begining of hard drive, than it will work faster? (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: Ty3
1 Replies

3. Solaris

/tmp as swap

So with solaris 10 are people not using the old /tmp as a regular UFS filesystem and making /tmp part of swap or tmpfs... what are peoples thoughts on this? (5 Replies)
Discussion started by: csaunders
5 Replies

4. Solaris

swap -l

When i try to type swap -l ,nothing come out but blinking. May i know what is the problem and solutions ? thanks (6 Replies)
Discussion started by: Farbegas
6 Replies

5. Solaris

Swap config - Mirror swap or not?

Hello and thanks in advance. I have a Sun box with raid 1 on the O/S disks using solaris svm. I want to unmirror my swap partition, and add the slice on the second disk as an additional swap device. This would give me twice as much swap space. I have been warned not to do this by some... (3 Replies)
Discussion started by: BG_JrAdmin
3 Replies

6. HP-UX

How much Swap is too much?

I have a HP-UX B.11.23 server with 16 gb of memory 84 gb of swap configured. I am being pushed to define more swap to try and get more Tuxedo domains to start. At what point do we have too much swap for the amount of memory? Thanks in advance. (11 Replies)
Discussion started by: scotbuff
11 Replies

7. Red Hat

swap not defined as swap

free -m : 1023 total swap space created default partition /dev/sdb1 50M using fdisk. i did write the changes. #mkswap /dev/sdb1 #swapon /dev/sdb1 free -m : 1078 total swap space this shows that the swap is on Question : i did not change the type LINUX SWAP (82) in fdisk. so why is... (5 Replies)
Discussion started by: dplinux
5 Replies

8. HP-UX

Swap device file and swap sapce

Hi I have an integrity machine rx7620 and rx8640 running hp-ux 11.31. I'm planning to fine tune the system: - I would like to know when does the memory swap space spill over to the device swap space? - And how much % of memory swap utilization should be specified (swap space device... (6 Replies)
Discussion started by: lamoul
6 Replies

9. Red Hat

swap

Hi, I have added a new disk to production server. How to make it visible to os and how to configure it. I also want to add some space from that disk to swap space. Please help me out. (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: chetansingh23
1 Replies

10. Solaris

Explain the output of swap -s and swap -l

Hi Solaris Folks :), I need to calculate the swap usage on solaris server, please let me understand the output of below swap -s and swap -l commands. $swap -s total: 1774912k bytes allocated + 240616k reserved = 2015528k used, 14542512k available $swap -l swapfile dev swaplo... (6 Replies)
Discussion started by: seenuvasan1985
6 Replies
BZERO(3)						     Linux Programmer's Manual							  BZERO(3)

NAME
bzero, explicit_bzero - zero a byte string SYNOPSIS
#include <strings.h> void bzero(void *s, size_t n); #include <string.h> void explicit_bzero(void *s, size_t n); DESCRIPTION
The bzero() function erases the data in the n bytes of the memory starting at the location pointed to by s, by writing zeroes (bytes con- taining '') to that area. The explicit_bzero() function performs the same task as bzero(). It differs from bzero() in that it guarantees that compiler optimizations will not remove the erase operation if the compiler deduces that the operation is "unnecessary". RETURN VALUE
None. VERSIONS
explicit_bzero() first appeared in glibc 2.25. ATTRIBUTES
For an explanation of the terms used in this section, see attributes(7). +-----------------+---------------+---------+ |Interface | Attribute | Value | +-----------------+---------------+---------+ |bzero(), | Thread safety | MT-Safe | |explicit_bzero() | | | +-----------------+---------------+---------+ CONFORMING TO
The bzero() function is deprecated (marked as LEGACY in POSIX.1-2001); use memset(3) in new programs. POSIX.1-2008 removes the specifica- tion of bzero(). The bzero() function first appeared in 4.3BSD. The explicit_bzero() function is a nonstandard extension that is also present on some of the BSDs. Some other implementations have a simi- lar function, such as memset_explicit() or memset_s(). NOTES
The explicit_bzero() function addresses a problem that security-conscious applications may run into when using bzero(): if the compiler can deduce that the location to zeroed will never again be touched by a correct program, then it may remove the bzero() call altogether. This is a problem if the intent of the bzero() call was to erase sensitive data (e.g., passwords) to prevent the possibility that the data was leaked by an incorrect or compromised program. Calls to explicit_bzero() are never optimized away by the compiler. The explicit_bzero() function does not solve all problems associated with erasing sensitive data: 1. The explicit_bzero() function does not guarantee that sensitive data is completely erased from memory. (The same is true of bzero().) For example, there may be copies of the sensitive data in a register and in "scratch" stack areas. The explicit_bzero() function is not aware of these copies, and can't erase them. 2. In some circumstances, explicit_bzero() can decrease security. If the compiler determined that the variable containing the sensitive data could be optimized to be stored in a register (because it is small enough to fit in a register, and no operation other than the explicit_bzero() call would need to take the address of the variable), then the explicit_bzero() call will force the data to be copied from the register to a location in RAM that is then immediately erased (while the copy in the register remains unaffected). The problem here is that data in RAM is more likely to be exposed by a bug than data in a register, and thus the explicit_bzero() call creates a brief time window where the sensitive data is more vulnerable than it would otherwise have been if no attempt had been made to erase the data. Note that declaring the sensitive variable with the volatile qualifier does not eliminate the above problems. Indeed, it will make them worse, since, for example, it may force a variable that would otherwise have been optimized into a register to instead be maintained in (more vulnerable) RAM for its entire lifetime. Notwithstanding the above details, for security-conscious applications, using explicit_bzero() is generally preferable to not using it. The developers of explicit_bzero() anticipate that future compilers will recognize calls to explicit_bzero() and take steps to ensure that all copies of the sensitive data are erased, including copies in registers or in "scratch" stack areas. SEE ALSO
bstring(3), memset(3), swab(3) COLOPHON
This page is part of release 4.15 of the Linux man-pages project. A description of the project, information about reporting bugs, and the latest version of this page, can be found at https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/. Linux 2017-09-15 BZERO(3)
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:40 PM.
Unix & Linux Forums Content Copyright 1993-2022. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy