My understanding is that it is a good idea ;) Even a little swap is handy, otherwise Linux kernel code exhibits bad performance. Though bad is relative. There is a document on the web discussing Linux vs FreeBSD database performance with 0 swap space.
FreeBSD was ok (obviously designed to deal with it) and Linux sucked (having _some_ swap made all the difference). Can't immediately find the reference. Anyone else remember it? Prolly gonna be fixed in 2.6 I suppose. Evan. On Sat, 2002-10-05 at 17:20, Justin Zygmont wrote: > does anyone know if you really need swap if you already have a lot of RAM? > > > On 5 Oct 2002, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > > > > > One of my work colleagues (an ex-mainframe guy) coined a phrase well > > > worth repeating here: > > > "All good operating systems will use all the memory you give them." > > > > > > :-) > > > > One of the servers where i work has 1Gb of ram doesnt actually do much > > never goes over 200mb of physical ram used but still insits on using > > swap space, os will remain unnamed. > > > > Dennis > > > > > > > > -- > > Psyche-list mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list > > > > > > -- > Psyche-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list > -- For security use OpenBSD: http://eread.freeshell.org/ "The future comes 60 minutes an hour no matter who you are or what you do." The Screwtape Letters - C.S. Lewis
