On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Ray Olszewski wrote:
> I don't know where you're seeing the "20M" number. The rule of thumb is to
I agree that exactly 20m is irelevant. The swap should be ajusted
according to resources and needs.
> make your swap partition twice the size of your physical RAM ... so, for example
>
> 32 Mb RAM --> 64 Mb swap
> 64 Mb RAM --> 128 Mb swap
Don't you think this is too big? To run without swap can be a
hazard. But to double the ram? The swap is extra ram, not the image of
ram and extra ram. I mean this would make sense if there was some
mirroring of the ram in the swap...
> This is only a rule of thumb, though, not an absolute requirement. It needs
> to be modified if, for example, you have a very small hard disk and a
> restricted application for the host. Kernels also used to (do they still?)
> have a limitation on how big a swap partition could be -- 128 Mb as I recall
Corect! But the 2.2.x kernel doesn't have this limit anymore.
> (though you could have multiple swap partitions). And the rule does come
> from the days of expensive RAM ... now I'd be tempted in a production
> environment to use more RAM up to the motherboard's limit, and avoid the
> speed penalty of swap if at all possible.
Raider
--
``Liberate tu-temet ex inferis''
