>> would have to commit just for stacks. With 2,000 processes, that >> would rise to 32GB just for stacks. > > With 4GB RAM, wouldn't you allocate at least that much swap > no matter what?
that's pretty expensive if you're booting from flash and not using a remote fileserver. 8GB flash is expensive, not to mention deadly slow. also, why should i have to have swap? i really don't want it. it introduces new failure modes and could introduce wide latency variations. linux called, it wants it's choppy, laggy ui back. - erik
