Randall R Schulz wrote: > On Thursday 11 January 2007 19:04, Terry Eck wrote: > >> ... >> >> I have always thought that the larger the real memory the smaller the >> swap space required. There are exceptions of course. In general, if >> your system uses a large swap space then you need to add more memory. >> > > There's no fixed relationship and its never strictly necessary to have > any swap space at all. Rules of thumb are just that: rough, generic > guidelines that may be suitable for some non-negligible fraction of > installations, but which cannot possibly be optimum for all but a few > particular installations. > >
That's true, there's no fixed relationship but there's a rule of thumb. And rule of thumb is very usefull for almost everybody. Think of partitioning during installation. You'll never know how much virtual memory you need so you follow a rule of thumb. Then, you can tune it if you really need it, right. But I don't think this is the case as the guy posted here said he added swap just because he's added RAM. Regards, Jan > The only thing you can say for sure is that whenever the system's > overall working set size exceeds the available RAM, you'll be thrashing > (if swap space is available at all). And if the total RAM required > exceeds available physical RAM plus swap, then the unlucky process that > tries to exceed that limit will simply not be able to get the RAM > allocation it requests. If it cannot explicitly handle that condition, > it will be terminated. > > > >> Terry >> > > > Randall Schulz > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
