Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:50:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> To: rfg@monkeys.com, rivers@dignus.com Cc: mladavac@metropolitan.at, questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Desperate to shrink a partition Message-ID: <199906171950.PAA77238@lakes.dignus.com> In-Reply-To: <23595.929648797@monkeys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > 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. :-( > It's a definate restriction on Sys/V boxes... It depends on how the VM works... I believe the strong suggestion in FreeBSD is twice the size of physical memory. But, I don't know if that's an actual requirement. (Historically, on SysV it was.) And - it may be a requirement that swap be as large as physical memory, if not twice as large... The VM gurus would be better than me to answer this. - Dave Rivers - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906171950.PAA77238>