Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 06:25:44 +0000 From: "Rob MacGregor" <rob_macgregor@hotmail.com> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SWAP size Message-ID: <BAY1-F755IYN1FZjjOj0002063c@hotmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
>
>So it's grown from "as much swap as you feel you need" to "as much
>swap as you have RAM" to "1.5 times RAM" to "2x RAM".
>
>All in all, it's just a rule of thumb; however, there are some
>consequences to not following it, for each time things have
>changed, the consequences get more and more dire. 8-).
>
>This is why people don't give much creedence to the people who
>are trying to run without swap; we're willing to help them track
>down things that make it impossible, but we recognize that just
>because something's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.
So you're suggesting that if I've got 16 GB of RAM I should have 32 GB of
swap? That's an entire hard disk *just* for swap (though from a performance
viewpoint, that's not bad). What about systems with even more RAM?
I agree that having nowhere to store crash dumps is a Bad Thing. However
there will be cases where that tradeoff is worth not having a swap device.
In my own case at home I have a FreeBSD (4.8) system without any swap. I
run without swap because the "disk" is a CompactFlash device - using that
for swap wouldn't be smart.
Then there's the issue of diskless systems where it's not possible to have
swap.
Please DO NOT send me ANY email directly unless it's a privacy issue.
Reply-to mangled to assist those who don't read the above.
--
Rob | What part of "no" was it you didn't understand?
_________________________________________________________________
Overloaded with spam? With MSN 8, you can filter it out
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&pgmarket=en-gb&XAPID=32&DI=1059
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BAY1-F755IYN1FZjjOj0002063c>