> > > On Linux any swap adds to the memory pool, so 1xRAM would be
> > > equivalent to 2xRAM with the old old OS's.
> >
> > no more true AFAIK
>
> I've always been trying to convice people that 2x RAM remains a good
> rule-of-thumb.
---
Ug. I like to view swap as "low grade memory" -- i.e. I really
should spend 99.9% of my time in RAM -- if I spill, then it means
I'm running too much/too big for my computer and should get more RAM --
meanwhile, I suffer with performance degradation to remind me I'm really
exceeding my machine's physical memory capacity.
An interesting option (though with less-than-stellar performance
characteristics) would be a dynamically expanding swapfile. If you're
going to be hit with swap penalties, it may be useful to not have to
pre-reserve something you only hit once in a great while.
Definitely only for systems where you don't expect to use swap (but
it could be there for "emergencies" up to some predefined limit or
available disk space).
--
The above thoughts and | They may have nothing to do with
writings are my own. | the opinions of my employer. :-)
L A Walsh | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI
law@sgi.com | Voice: (650) 933-5338
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/