I guess in a way that echoes my point Bill. It seems that on a 512MB system, swap doesn't get hit significantly under any but the most extreme circumstances. I would suggest if you want to cater to those extreme scenarios, it would be better to have multiple swap partitions spread over several disks. Anyway, as you note, disk is cheap. It just grates on me to lock up an extra half gig or more. So I'll stick to my 256MB and walk on the wild side! ;-)
Brian On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 12:42, William Kenworthy wrote: > I have 256 ram and 512 swap - and regularly run out of space (single > user processing largish files at times), resorting to additional swap > files as a temporary solution.! Just upgraded to 512mram and find that > files that would send the swap over top now hardly effect it - ram must > be more efficient! However, next time I will go for 1g swap - if disk > space is not a priority, go for the max and you dont get stuck with a > system you have to reformat when real use patterns change. The system > still ran - sort of - when the swap filled, but its not something you > want to plan on doing. What is really needed is a dynamic swap file for > overloads, but I have never heard of this for linux. > > BillK > > On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 09:27, Brian Parish wrote: > > Unless you are planning on running a LOT of very memory hungry apps > > simultaneously, 1GB of swap would be overkill. I know the 2xRAM formula > > still finds favor, but this isn't true as far as I can see for machines > > with this much RAM. I am running with 512 MB RAM and I've never managed > > to make my machine use more than a small fraction of the 256MB swap > > allocated. So, unless you have 10 Gimp users or something, 512MB would > > seem like more than enough. > > > > ---- > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
