Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > On 2021-07-15, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 05:28:06PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > >> The problem appears to be here: > >> > >> > wdc2 at pcmcia0 function 0 "TRANSCEND, TS8GCF133, " port 0x340/16: irq 3 > >> > wd1 at wdc2 channel 0 drive 0: <TS8GCF133> > >> > wd1: 1-sector PIO, LBA48, 7647MB, 15662304 sectors > >> > wd1(wdc2:0:0): using BIOS timings > >> > >> > a: 1060.6M 64 4.2BSD 2048 16384 1 # / > >> > b: 256.0M 2172128 swap > >> > c: 7647.6M 0 unused > >> > d: 3072.0M 2696416 4.2BSD 2048 16384 1 # /usr > >> > e: 2048.0M 8987872 4.2BSD 2048 16384 1 # /home > >> > >> Your swap is only 256MB. That seem too low. (We have walked away from > >> making it correspond to physical memory, but still, it seems uncomfortably > >> low). > >> > >> As well, /usr seems a bit large, leaving not much for /home. > >> > >> The autoallocation scheme might have made a less than perfect decision > >> here. > >> > > > > Thhis is bassed on the "medium" allocation, swap, /usr and /home have > > reached there max according to the table. We can make swap have a > > alrager max and take more of the pie. What would be a good max size > > for swap these days omn such a small disk? > > > > -Otto > > > > > > It depends on the RAM really, normally that space is better in /usr > so that upgrades don't break quite as easily...
Swap allocation should not depend on available RAM. That outdated meme is silly, because it is impossible to come up with a reasonable calculation of how much memory a machine WOULD USE. Instead, we should just grab a piece of the disk, for swap. 256MB just seems too small. OTOH, machines like this should not be a priority for us.
