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




Reply via email to