In my mind, it's better to have too little than too much, because you can always allocate more on the fly if you need it (with mkswap on a file, followed by swapon), but fixing a system that uses a huge monolithic chunk of swap is sometimes difficult.
--Matt On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Dan Foster <[email protected]> wrote: > Hot Diggety! Michael C Tiernan was rumored to have written: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Adam Tauno Williams" <[email protected]> >> >> > Most recommendations I see [...] >> >> The thing I keep seeing is stuff that discusses about how much the >> system "*needs*". There's lots of sides about how you can live without >> much or you *should*[1] have some or you *should*[1] have lots but I'm >> wondering if anyone found any discussions about what happens if you >> have *too* much swap? >> >> Ignoring the issue of wasting disk space, are there any negatives to >> having lots of swap? > > That's actually easy to answer: the system slows down BIG time if it's > heavily utilized, to the point where you're forced to power cycle it > uncleanly if you want to regain control in less than 24 hours. :) > > So swap sizing is bit of an art; need to know what the app needs (and > how it works behind the scenes) and allocate accordingly, but not set up > such so huge of an 'overdraft' account that you find yourself in an > impossible-to-sanely-fulfill-quickly situation. > > -Dan > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ > -- LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? COOKIE MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process. _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
