From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 9 15:11:44 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7DEE1065676 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:11:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.9]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3238FC17 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:11:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 15395 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2009 15:11:43 -0000 Received: from dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO be-well.ilk.org) ([66.92.78.145]) (envelope-sender ) by mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 9 Sep 2009 15:11:43 -0000 Received: by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 4446850868; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:11:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Lowell Gilbert To: Peter Steele References: <7B9397B189EB6E46A5EE7B4C8A4BB7CB3037EBB7@MBX03.exg5.exghost.com> <20090908235259.GB19173@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <20090909105707.GA27941@torus.slightlystrange.org> <7B9397B189EB6E46A5EE7B4C8A4BB7CB3037EC0A@MBX03.exg5.exghost.com> <20090909165005.089ae704@suszko.eu> <7B9397B189EB6E46A5EE7B4C8A4BB7CB3037EC62@MBX03.exg5.exghost.com> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:11:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7B9397B189EB6E46A5EE7B4C8A4BB7CB3037EC62@MBX03.exg5.exghost.com> (Peter Steele's message of "Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:58:09 -0500") Message-ID: <441vmgw3td.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using mdconfig for swap space X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:11:44 -0000 Peter Steele writes: >>Nowadays having swap twice as RAM is not necessary. If your system >>wasn't swapping much in the past you can safely stay with 4G in my >>opinion... extending it to 16G would be waste of space :) > > I won't bore you with the details but in fact our application *does* > require this much swap space, but not for the typical reasons. It's a > side effect of how our application works and we thought we could make > use of an image file for the extra swap rather than repartitioning, > but I've read too many warnings against going this route so I've > decided to stick with increasing the size of the swap partition. It's easy to *try* the swap files. Then measure the performance. If the behaviour is really as specific to your custom application as you indicate, then general advice may not apply either. -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/