On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:40:24 -0700, Hans wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Ron Johnson wrote: The old "you need 2x RAM for swap" rule is hard > > to forget. > > I never really understood the rationale for that rule. It seems > like a system with more RAM would need less swap, not more. In > particular, it always seemed to me like it'd be a bit silly to use 8 > gigs of disk for swap on a system with 4 gigs of RAM. Can someone > explain the reasons for the 2x rule? Is there a performance boost? ..naaah, provides slower softer crashes on machines old enough to let you think thru whether you want that big ass core dump to debug leaks in FG or whether you prefer acting to save your nice big uptime. ;o) ..writing twice your memory to disk with load at say 25, takes quite a while on old junk and is reasonably sure to catch traces of e.g. Pine trying to shoot down Emacs and instead hitting Vi. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
