From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 11 09:41:58 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1BBB16A402 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:41:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from steve@sohara.org) Received: from sohara.org (sohara.org [192.220.64.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B039C43D49 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:41:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from steve@sohara.org) Received: (qmail 5380 invoked by uid 16563); 11 Apr 2006 09:41:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO df1.marelmo.com) ([194.165.167.130]) (envelope-sender ) by 192.220.64.179 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 11 Apr 2006 09:41:57 -0000 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:41:45 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org 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> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.16; i386-pc-dragonfly) X-Face: %]+HVL}K`P8>+8ZcY-WGHP6j@&mxMo9JH6_WdgIgUGH)JX/usO0%jy7T~IVgqjumD^OBqX, Kv^-GM6mlw(fI^$"QRKyZ$?xx/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Maximum Swapsize X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:41:59 -0000 On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:28:19 +1000 Peter Jeremy 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/