> Is threu that there should be at least 4 times more free space then real > memory? I read something like that but don't remember it for sure. I have > probaly less than memory on my test drive.
NO! AUGH! I am *so* frigging sick of all the magic "you need N times more swap than RAM" rules, with N usually 2, 3, or 4. They're all shite. You need as much swap (or swap+RAM, depending on the swap allocation policy) as the amount of virtual memory you're going to use. That's it. I've run systems with everything from zero swap to more than 10x RAM in swap. If you have greedy swap allocation you always need 1X swap. With lazy swap allocation like Apple uses you actually need less swap as you add RAM, so long as you don't do more as you get more memory. Which isn't all that unlikely, of course. :) It's a balance of physics and psychology, like most things. > Can moving swap file on other disk help to performence? Absolutely. On traditional UNIX I normally try and have a swap partition on every disk. Apple has seen fit to make that impossible (mutter, mutter) but if you have the system and swap on separate disks you'll get less seeking and more opportunity for concurrent reads and writes. -- Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Unsupported OS X list info <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive <http://www.mail-archive.com/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
