It completely totally and absolutely depends on the kind of workloads you put
your system under.
I have a database server with 1G phys and 1G swap. It uses 950+ MB for cache,
as it should, and doesn't even *touch* swap. This is 2.4.5.
I have another box with 384MB phys and 1G swap, and it's usually a few hundred
megs into swap. That's what long-running memory hogs and big compilers do.
There is no simple answer. swap = 2*phys may be reasonable for some desktop
uses, I don't know. But there *is* *no* *simple* *answer*.
With the amount of work that's gone into just *understanding* why the VM
behaves as it does (even after the VM rewrite that was done exactly in order to
come up with a VM we could *understand*), it's beyond me how anyone can even
begin to think that one can define a set of simple and exact rules for minimum
or "optimal" (whatever that means) values for swap.
(if I sound pissed, don't worry, I'm not. I'm frustrated, that's different ;)
-- ................................................................ : jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, : :.........................: putrid forms of man : : Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, : : OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. : :.........................:............{Konkhra}...............: - 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/