On 10/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The recommendation of swap == 2x RAM is oldfashoned and may even be bad. Googling will give you more than you ever wanted to know ... IMHO you'd hardly ever want more than 512M of swap. If you did you'd know and understand why. This is a busy server/desktop that has been running for months: top - 10:02:21 up 63 days, 22:36, 29 users, load average: 0.06, 0.07, 0.07 Tasks: 202 total, 4 running, 198 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 1.4%us, 3.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 94.1%id, 0.3%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.8%si, 0.0%st Mem: 1027068k total, 1011776k used, 15292k free, 88764k buffers Swap: 1509988k total, 277160k used, 1232828k free, 383616k cached James PS the argument goes that a runaway process gets to use huge swap then cripples the machine while on smaller swap it runs out of memory more quickly and gets killed. (Thats wot it said, I promise :-)
We've been through this argument before, dig through SLUG mailing list archives. The argument that I heard against large swap is that many swap pages also mean lots of main memory used up just to keep track of them and searching through them. On top of that - if your system uses more than around .5-1 Gig swap it's going to be slow like a dog anyway so you better increase your RAM. Cheers, --Amos Hear this - I just heard from a Windows programmer that Windows won't allow you to memory-map a file if it doesn't have as much real memory available as the file size - WTF?! -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
