Re: Swap size

2007-08-17 Thread Andy Greenwood
Jerry McAllister wrote: On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 02:05:57AM +0200, Nicholas Wieland wrote: I was reading tuning(7), and I found that I should size my swap double the size of my physical memory. AFAIK that was true some years ago, when memory was not as cheap as now, and following that

Re: Swap size

2007-08-17 Thread Paul Schmehl
--On Friday, August 17, 2007 11:07:14 -0400 Andy Greenwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jerry McAllister wrote: On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 02:05:57AM +0200, Nicholas Wieland wrote: I was reading tuning(7), and I found that I should size my swap double the size of my physical memory. AFAIK that

Re: Swap size

2007-08-17 Thread Jerry McAllister
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 02:05:57AM +0200, Nicholas Wieland wrote: I was reading tuning(7), and I found that I should size my swap double the size of my physical memory. AFAIK that was true some years ago, when memory was not as cheap as now, and following that guideline I should set my

Re: Swap size

2007-08-17 Thread Robert Huff
Andy Greenwood writes: And the system is under normal load. This system has 1G of RAM. Is there any sense in having this much swap space when it's not being used? 1) It is - usually - better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. 2) While some machines

Re: Swap size

2007-08-17 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 11:07:14AM -0400, Andy Greenwood wrote: My understanding was that you should estimate swap size based on the sizes of the programs which might be paged out. However, when I first set up my system, I didn't know this and created 1G swap slices (one on each disk) but

Re: Swap size

2007-08-16 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 02:05:57AM +0200, Nicholas Wieland wrote: I was reading tuning(7), and I found that I should size my swap double the size of my physical memory. AFAIK that was true some years ago, when memory was not as cheap as now, and following that guideline I should set my

Re: Swap size

2007-08-16 Thread Eric Crist
On Aug 16, 2007, at 7:05 PMAug 16, 2007, Nicholas Wieland wrote: I was reading tuning(7), and I found that I should size my swap double the size of my physical memory. AFAIK that was true some years ago, when memory was not as cheap as now, and following that guideline I should set my swap

Re: Swap size

2007-07-19 Thread Derek Ragona
At 03:03 AM 7/19/2007, Gabriel Linder wrote: Hi, I plan to setup FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE on my Core Duo laptop with 1GB of RAM. The handbook says ideal swap size is 2xRAM, so should I use 2GB of swap ? Yes unless you know how many applications will ever be run and their run size. The 2xRAM is

Re: Swap size

2007-07-19 Thread [LoN]Kamikaze
Derek Ragona wrote: At 03:03 AM 7/19/2007, Gabriel Linder wrote: Hi, I plan to setup FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE on my Core Duo laptop with 1GB of RAM. The handbook says ideal swap size is 2xRAM, so should I use 2GB of swap ? Yes unless you know how many applications will ever be run and their

Re: Swap size

2007-07-19 Thread Gabriel Linder
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote: Derek Ragona wrote: At 03:03 AM 7/19/2007, Gabriel Linder wrote: Hi, I plan to setup FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE on my Core Duo laptop with 1GB of RAM. The handbook says ideal swap size is 2xRAM, so should I use 2GB of swap ? Yes unless you know how many applications will ever

Re: Swap Size Importance?

2006-09-29 Thread John Nielsen
On Friday 29 September 2006 11:52, Chris wrote: As a standard practice, I've always configured swap file to be double the size of real ram split across system and data disk. For example, 8gb on da0 and 8gb on da1 if the system has 8g real ram. In practice, In 7 or 8 years, I've never seen swap

Re: Swap Size Importance?

2006-09-29 Thread Jerry McAllister
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 08:52:58AM -0700, Chris wrote: As a standard practice, I've always configured swap file to be double the size of real ram split across system and data disk. For example, 8gb on da0 and 8gb on da1 if the system has 8g real ram. In practice, In 7 or 8 years, I've

Re: Swap Size Importance?

2006-09-29 Thread Chris
On Sep 29, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Jerry McAllister wrote: On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 08:52:58AM -0700, Chris wrote: Is there any shortfall in performance or reliability to running production with swap equal in size to the 8gb of system memory? I doesn't matter much. But, if you run enough to

Re: Swap size

2004-07-06 Thread Jerry McAllister
Hello all, What swap size should i use having 768 Mb of memory? I've heard something about preformance degradation if swap size is bellow 2x of ram... Traditionally, 2 1/2 X RAM size. But everyone seems to have their own prejudice on this. It depends on the size and number

Re: Swap size

2004-07-05 Thread Bill Moran
Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, What swap size should i use having 768 Mb of memory? I've heard something about preformance degradation if swap size is bellow 2x of ram... Other's have pointed out that you don't _need_ swap space. If you have enough RAM, you can

Re: Swap size

2004-07-04 Thread Joshua Moore
I think for most cases if you have more then 512 MB of ram you can just have the swap size the same size as the amount of ram you have installed. Lists wrote: Hello all, What swap size should i use having 768 Mb of memory? I've heard something about preformance degradation if swap size

Re: Swap size

2004-07-04 Thread Lowell Gilbert
Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What swap size should i use having 768 Mb of memory? I've heard something about preformance degradation if swap size is bellow 2x of ram... You don't *need* ANY swap. Until you fill up your RAM, at which point it's nice to have some swap space

Re: swap size and zombie

2004-06-12 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Jun 12), Chris said: Looking at a web/email server with the following from top ... last pid: 29494; load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 up 85+12:33:05 23:07:44 39 processes: 1 running, 37 sleeping, 1 zombie CPU states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0%

Re: swap size and a zombie

2004-06-11 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:10:50PM -0500, Chris wrote: *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro* Looking at a web/email server with the following from top ... last pid: 29494; load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 up 85+12:33:05 23:07:44 39 processes: