What I actually meant was, I know in the old days, if you had 128MB, you want a
256MB swap but with 2GB RAM, isn't 4GB going to be overkill for a swap or are
you saying that a 2GB swap will work? I'm still lost on the ratio since I
thought the 2x was only if you had like small amounts of RAM.
----- Original Message ----
From: Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Aloha Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2007 2:28:47 PM
Subject: Re: swap file vs swap partition
Aloha Guy wrote:
> Thanks for the input. You do have good points. The only issue with
> swap partitions is that it seems like you need to increase it everytime
> you increase the physical memory. Is there a swap partition size limit
> that pretty much will handle anything and setting a number larger than
> that will really not offer anything?
Processors and memory have vastly outpaced the speed of disks; any
amount of swapping is going to be percieved as being very slow and
something that should be avoided. Since RAM is also very cheap now,
most people just load enough RAM into their system to handle their load,
and then configure enough swap to hold a crashdump of that RAM. You
always want swap so that you can handle unexpected spikes in load
without crashing, but it's less of an integral piece of normal system
operation these days.
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"