Jos, Originally, i wantded to wrtie "if we take Stefan seriously, then something like 2/3 of RAM size should be 99.99% enough; and you'll probably never see the 0.01% worst case in your lifetime".
But then, with modern harddrives, who cares about one or two G more or less :) * As a sidenote, what happens if we put hibernation swap on a fast external USB 3.0 pendrive device ... doesn't that mean the data is safe even if the laptop gets snatched ? > That's right. I'm able to hibernate, suspend and run many applications (I > didn't try things like creating a squashfs ) at the same time using 3.8 GB > of swap and 4gb of RAM. > > I was thinking of using 6gb swap for my new installation. But now I think > in the new installation in my new SSD, I will just use a 4gb max swap > partition. What do you say ? > On 06-Feb-2016 7:54 AM, "Tom Dial" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thank you; I did not know that, and it makes for a significant swap size > > reduction in nearly all cases of a desktop or laptop workstation. > > > > The other points, I think, are not much changed. For the case Jos > > Collin presented initially, (and noting his mention in another branch of > > 175 MB actually used) 2GB swap likely is quite enough. > > > > Tom > > > > > > On 02/04/2016 03:41 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > >> option, swap is where the memory image is put, and it should be at least > > >> as large as real memory. > > > > > > Actually no: when hibernating, the requirement is that the currently > > > unused swap space (which should usually be pretty much the whole swap > > > space), be large enough to contain a *compressed* form of a *part* of > > > the RAM (the parts that can be skipped are those which would never be > > > moved to swap anyway, such as the caches that hold a copy of data which > > > is already available elsewhere on disk). > > > > > > So it doesn't need to be as large as RAM. In many cases, the amount of > > > swap space used by hibernation less than 1/3 of RAM. > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > >
