Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:53:33 +1030 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Aloha Guy <alohaguy123@yahoo.com>, questions@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: swap file vs swap partition Message-ID: <200702051053.43566.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <45C65E1F.2020109@samsco.org> References: <393982.95591.qm@web53614.mail.yahoo.com> <45C65E1F.2020109@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart3042139.onAsnrdtT4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 05 February 2007 08:58, Scott Long wrote: > Processors and memory have vastly outpaced the speed of disks; any > amount of swapping is going to be percieved as being very slow and > something that should be avoided. Since RAM is also very cheap now, > most people just load enough RAM into their system to handle their load, > and then configure enough swap to hold a crashdump of that RAM. You > always want swap so that you can handle unexpected spikes in load > without crashing, but it's less of an integral piece of normal system > operation these days. Mini-dumps have made it a lot easier to get away with a small amount of swa= p. That said it's not like disk is expensive either! =2D-=20 Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C --nextPart3042139.onAsnrdtT4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBFxnkP5ZPcIHs/zowRAi0FAKCK3pa4PyVrRveBzzjr80lzMCQT8ACbB/1V LquHG04FTBLspki+j7KThrA= =hOIr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3042139.onAsnrdtT4--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200702051053.43566.doconnor>