You made me revisit the man pages. Without reading Vernon's link I think Xymon is correct and 'top' is incorrect. Both swap -s and swap -l are correct. I did already know Solaris does some magic foot work with real memory when calculating swap which may be in Vernon's article but I think I can explain the numbers in the AM. Time for sleep before the babies wake up.
~David
From: Jeremy Laidman [mailto:user-71895fb2e44c@xymon.invalid]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:58 PM
To: Gore, David W (David)
Cc: xymon at xymon.com
Subject: Re: [Xymon] Solaris 10 swap not showing on memory alert correctly?
On 27 June 2013 02:38, Gore, David W (David) <user-368fd67cc6bd@xymon.invalid<mailto:user-368fd67cc6bd@xymon.invalid>> wrote:
Where is it getting the 106M number? Anyone else seen this on Solaris?
Yes, same here. It gets the number from the [swaplist] section (from `swap -l`) of your client message, in preference to the [swap] section (from `swap -s`). [Reference: xymond/client/solaris.c, in function handle_solaris_client()]
So the real question is, why does "swap -s" and "swap -l" give different results? The man page for swap indicates that "swap -s" includes swap space in the form of physical memory (in addition to swap partitions and files). Physical memory used for swap?! Huh!? I really don't know how the Solaris memory management works!
J