From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 27 17:59:34 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD90F4B4 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 17:59:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dt71@gmx.com) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68665189 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 17:59:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.80] ([78.92.216.13]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MAgvb-1UZcnB21c3-00BrMC for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 19:59:30 +0200 Message-ID: <51A39EF8.6020700@gmx.com> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 19:59:20 +0200 From: dt71@gmx.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: >3955MiB of swap space Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:r8KdtqtY2ODEiNfbuth/ccypistekwzomxol2ttq4hUvjVFr0Ni XBbK4GdlTR0rPY6vqVpSiMPGVR47dyOcWx3j5bq1aYmfJ9nMSh5y2h/wBHzhVXDFCLrEJad 1pI/e+tAQkmQ531SBhobvyCC3LdFF55Wb9rqxriez7BFS9xSoFcKAVwS03dbGEHsXUJbaNx jucHNpOfAjTbbnLqabr4w== X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:59:34 -0000 I have 4 hard drives, each containing a swap partition of size 1023MiB. I get: warning: total configured swap (1178880 pages) exceeds maximum recommended amount (1012480 pages). warning: increase kern.maxswzone or reduce amount of swap. Is the warning safe to ignore? I assume that only 3955MiB of swap space will be used instead of 4092MiB, because using more would cause overhead. I do not prefer to repartition the drives for them to have swap partitions each of size (3955/4)MiB. By the way, is swapping distributed evenly among the drives? How? Is there a downfall when one of the drives is outstandingly slow?