On Jul 04 10:57:45, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:06:37PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
>
> > > this is another problem. configure
> > > swap to be double the RAM size, or if you insist on loading the
> > > machine about 4 times the RAM size. you obviously forgot to or didn't
> > > want to configure swap.
> >
> > is the "twice the RAM" mantra still valid today?
>
> No, that only makes sense for relatively small systems. The disklabel
> auto allocation policy uses a max size if 2x physmem for physmem <
> 256M. Otherwise it allocates a bit more than physical mem size.
Well, this machine has 128M - does that mean that having 256M of swap
would make my system generally better?
> Running without swap should be no problem, though you might hit code
> paths otherwise not taken, so there is an buigger chance you'll find
> bugs. If that is good or not depends on your personal perspective.
On machines that are not as "fixed" as the ALIX
(128M soldered on board), I try to have enough RAM
to not ever have to swap. I will probably reinstall
this ALIX with 256M swap and see if this problem disappears.
Before I do that, are there any hints on these code paths
not usually taken, such as how I might hit this more often
on a smallmem machine such as this? Or any specific tests?
Jan
