Chris wrote: > On Wednesday 01 June 2005 07:21 pm, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > >>Chris wrote: >> >>>On Wednesday 01 June 2005 07:07 pm, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: >>> >>>>Chris wrote: >>>> >>>>>Thanks Stephen, I remember you mentioning this before. I'll have to >>>>>take a serious look now. I screwed up when I setup my system and made >>>>>my swap 612mb, now with 512mb ram I know its too small. Box is running >>>>>so well now, after removing the bad ram, think I'll wait for my next >>>>>release install and redo the partition. >>>> >>>>612Mb should be plenty of swap. What does free show about your swap >>>>usage? Also, unless you are going to add more RAM, and use software >>>>suspend, you can add more swap space if you need it ether by adding a >>>>swap file, or another swap partition. If you are going to use software >>>>suspend, you need a swap partition as large as your RAM. >>>> >>>>Mikkel >>> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] chris]$ free >>> total used free shared buffers cached >>>Mem: 516044 511168 4876 0 21960 142272 >>>-/+ buffers/cache: 346936 169108 >>>Swap: 626492 59612 566880 >> >>I wouldn't worry about adding any more swap space unless you use >>software suspend.... >> >>Mikkel > > > Then it wouldn't matter if I added another 128 or 256mb ram? The swap could > remain at 612mb? > Sure. The old rule of thumb that said you needed 1-1/2 to 2 times the size of your RAM hasn't applied to Linux for a long time. With large amounts of RAM, swap space isn't used as much. If you were using software suspend, that would be different. But I don't think too many people are using that.
Mikkel -- Registered Linux User #16148 (http://counter.li.org/)
____________________________________________________ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com ____________________________________________________
