Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 21:45:03 -0400 From: David Gilbert <dgilbert@velocet.ca> To: "Jin Guojun [DSD]" <j_guojun@lbl.gov> Cc: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Subject: Re: SWAP size Message-ID: <16048.31775.642709.140262@canoe.velocet.net> In-Reply-To: <3EB05582.297F50AE@lbl.gov> References: <200304281054.48976.ryba@kompakt.pl> <20030430174616.E59039@lorax.ubergeeks.com> <3EB05582.297F50AE@lbl.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "Jin" == Jin Guojun <[DSD]" <j_guojun@lbl.gov>> writes: Jin> not have a lot of RAM, though ...") if (1) no money to buy more Jin> RAM, (2) no slot to put more RAM or (3) it is a server just favor Jin> by every user to run their programs. Jin> Swap space is prepared for too many processes outrunning the RAM. Jin> It is not for improving performance, but exchange cost of disk Jin> for RAM. More swap space required means that more swap time Jin> means slow. Another thing working in favour of 2x swap is that disk has been becoming that much cheaper. With 1G and 2G disks, I was carefully considering the 256M of swap (2x 128M of memory) that I configured. With disks of 80G and more, I have been putting 1G of swap on every spindle I install because it really doesn't make a difference and I'd rather have 4x 1G swap partitions spread across spindles than only one 4G partition. That's not to claim that I have 2G of RAM (I actually have 1G), but disk space in general has become amazingly cheap. Dave. -- ============================================================================ |David Gilbert, Velocet Communications. | Two things can only be | |Mail: dgilbert@velocet.net | equal if and only if they | |http://daveg.ca | are precisely opposite. | =========================================================GLO================
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16048.31775.642709.140262>