From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jun 17 12:46: 0 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from veenet.value.net (value.net [209.182.128.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C266150CD for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:45:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rfg@monkeys.com) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by veenet.value.net (8.8.7/8.7.4) with ESMTP id MAA08282; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23597; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:46:37 -0700 To: Thomas David Rivers Cc: mladavac@metropolitan.at, questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Desperate to shrink a partition In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 17 Jun 1999 07:29:16 -0400. <199906171129.HAA13988@lakes.dignus.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:46:37 -0700 Message-ID: <23595.929648797@monkeys.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <199906171129.HAA13988@lakes.dignus.com>, you wrote: >> Now the problem: When this system was setup (and partitioned) initially >> it had a MUCH bigger swap space than physical memory. It has since had >> physical memory added however. It now has 320MB physical and only a >> single 140MB swap partition setup for it. > > Maybe this is what's causing the panics? I thought swap had to be > at least as large as physical memory... and the casual recommendation > is for it to be twice as large. I never heard of THAT rule before! Why would that be necessary? If all programs and data on the system always run comfortably within the available physical memory, then why should anyone need _anything_ other than a token swap partition? (Of course, I am leaving out the usefulness of swap partitions for debugging kernel malfunctions. :-( To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message