Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 02:35:33 -0500 (CDT) From: "Brandon D. Valentine" <bandix@geekpunk.net> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org>, FreeBSD Hackers List <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: swap & huge mem systems Message-ID: <20020709023121.X11678-100000@dallben.homeportal.2wire.net> In-Reply-To: <200207090527.g695R23C049724@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Matthew Dillon wrote: >:Thus spake Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>: >:> Erik Trulsson wrote: >:> > Minimal swap if you want to be able to catch core dumps: Physical RAM >:> > size + 64K >: >:I've caught many core dumps with swap == RAM. Am I just getting >:lucky, or am I losing 64K of the image? >: >:> Crash dumps good. >: >:I beg to differ. ;-) > > You only need as much as physical ram. e.g. 1G of ram, 1G on the > dump device (which can be the swap partition). Allocating swap = physical RAM doesn't buy you any expansion though. I always try to do at least twice physical RAM so that if I ever double the RAM in my machine I'm still able to catch crash dumps. It's not worth having to repartition the drive to add more swap every time I add more RAM when a 120GB 7.2k drive is ~$170. What's 2GB of swap on a 120GB disk or even a 40GB disk for that matter? Brandon D. Valentine -- http://www.geekpunk.net bandix@geekpunk.net ++[>++++++<-]>[<++++++>-]<.>++++[>+++++<-]>[<+++++>-]<+.+++++++..++ +.>>+++++[<++++++>-]<++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.>+. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020709023121.X11678-100000>