On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 02:43 +0100, Jonathan Ervine wrote: > On Monday 29 October 2007 03:53:26 jdd wrote: > > Nate Pearlstein wrote: > > > Read what Russel Cocker has to say at this link: > > > > > > http://etbe.coker.com.au/2007/09/28/swap-space/ > > > > many lines of "this is not a good idea", but very little proof of > > this > > > > I still don't see what is the problem. The disk space is cheap and if > > the system don't need swap, it won't use it, so I see only a vaste of > > disk space... > > Overloading on swap is not a good idea. As someone has already > mentioned, if you've got 4GB of physical RAM and still find you're > swapping, then you should add more RAM. One real reason why a large > swap file/partition is unhelpful: the kernel still has to maintain > memory addresses, and if you have a whopping great big swap > file/partition then you have a whopping great big page table that has > to be constantly monitored by the kernel. A complete waste of system > resources if you ask me... > > Jon
Coincidentally, I just happened to be reading up on SWAP only moments ago in a study guide. In my material, it recommends instead of doubling SWAP to the size of RAM, you should spread SWAP into partitions in multiple disks. Then set the priority in /etc/fstab to 1 for each of the partitions. That way, SWAP runs optimally and the CPU delegates to all SWAP partitions in parallel. In /etc/fstab, you would do something like this, assuming you have two drives on your machine. /dev/sda1 swap swap pri=1 0.0 /dev/sdb1 swap swap pri=1 0.0 Be sure that your drives are of the same speed. I'm only paraphrasing what I was just reading, but it makes sense to me. If anyone else has had experience with this type of optimization, would love to hear more from you! -- ---Bryen--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
