Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:41:45 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Maximum Swapsize Message-ID: <20060411104145.5ec0f1ac.steve@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <20060411092819.GA707@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <1dbad3150604100913hff9fc4dsb125ea541675f992@mail.gmail.com> <20060410161713.GA48094@xor.obsecurity.org> <200604111048.09905.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <443B0A51.8040206@voidcaptain.com> <20060411092819.GA707@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:28:19 +1000
Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-Apr-10 18:45:53 -0700, Pete Slagle wrote:
> >When you have very limited physical RAM you need a lot of swap space.
> >When you have more than enough RAM you don't need any swap space at all.
> >For a given set of applications, as RAM increases you need less swap
> >space, not more. And vice versa.
>
> The key point here is "for a given set of applications". Whilst I
> could (in theory) attach 1GB swap to my 4MB 486 and run openoffice and
> mozilla, in practice, the performance would rapidly discourage me.
It might not be too bad if the 1GB of swap was to RAM and a small
processor pretending to be a fast disc.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060411104145.5ec0f1ac.steve>