[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Not sure if this is still relevant but a while ago I read that swap should be atleast ram * 2. This is because in the event of a kernel panic where a core dump is produced the kernel will write all of memory to the swap space prior to writing the file. The dump writer does not check the swap boundries and could potentially overwrite the partition following the swap space. So I usually go with at least 2 * ram and put the swap partition at the end of the drive if possible, I'v recently taken to using my old 540mb drives as swap disks. Fred Kevin Brosius wrote: > Erik Yunghans wrote: > > > > so maybe ill break it down like this: > > > > swap -> 512mb (256 mb of ram) > > This brings up a question from me. This is the second time in the last > week I've seem someone with a lot of memory (eg, more than 128M) suggest > using a larger swap partition than their physical RAM. The other > message I read suggested 1G of swap on a machine with 128 or 256M of RAM > (I forget which). > > Personally, I've never seen much of a need for swap once I hit 128M of > RAM. Of course, I only do some heavy compiling and no server type > activity. So the question I've got is, in what cases would you want to > use 2x or 3x RAM if your desktop/workstation machine has 128 or 256M of > RAM? (Ignoring the fact that on a 30G drive you might not care about > 500M of drive space...) > > -- > Kevin Brosius > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org > Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce > General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug ______________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug