Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:50:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Adrian Filipi-Martin <adrian+freebsd-perf@ubergeeks.com> To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SWAP size Message-ID: <20030430174616.E59039@lorax.ubergeeks.com> In-Reply-To: <200304282314.22236.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <200304281054.48976.ryba@kompakt.pl> <200304282314.22236.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > On Monday 28 April 2003 10:54, Piotr Rybicki wrote: > > Hi everyone. > > > > In man tuning(7) we read, that swap size should be about 2x main memmory > > size. Why swap size should be so big? Isn't swap size equal to main memmory > > size enough? > > IMHO the swapsize=2x phys. mem size has always been just a rule of thumb. You > need as much swap as you need (doh). But so far, the memory requirements of > software have pretty much grown proportionally with the availibility / > affordability of bigger sticks of memory and thus the rule of thumb still > makes sense. YMMV. > > -- > Regards, > Michael Nottebrock It used to mean something. 1x for swapping (whole processes) and 1x for paging (just pages of a process). Each portion was used for exactly one purpose. This is no longer a valid reason though. IIRC, it is because FreeBSD has a unified buffer cache. I don't know if there are any other reasons for 2x. I don't bothe with more than 1x personally, if that much. Swap space is really there for emergencies only IMHO. Adrian -- [ adrian@ubergeeks.com ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030430174616.E59039>