That's right. I'm able to hibernate, suspend and run many applications (I didn't try things like creating a squashfs ) at the same time using 3.8 GB of swap and 4gb of RAM.
I was thinking of using 6gb swap for my new installation. But now I think in the new installation in my new SSD, I will just use a 4gb max swap partition. What do you say ? On 06-Feb-2016 7:54 AM, "Tom Dial" <tdd...@comcast.net> wrote: > Thank you; I did not know that, and it makes for a significant swap size > reduction in nearly all cases of a desktop or laptop workstation. > > The other points, I think, are not much changed. For the case Jos > Collin presented initially, (and noting his mention in another branch of > 175 MB actually used) 2GB swap likely is quite enough. > > Tom > > > On 02/04/2016 03:41 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> option, swap is where the memory image is put, and it should be at least > >> as large as real memory. > > > > Actually no: when hibernating, the requirement is that the currently > > unused swap space (which should usually be pretty much the whole swap > > space), be large enough to contain a *compressed* form of a *part* of > > the RAM (the parts that can be skipped are those which would never be > > moved to swap anyway, such as the caches that hold a copy of data which > > is already available elsewhere on disk). > > > > So it doesn't need to be as large as RAM. In many cases, the amount of > > swap space used by hibernation less than 1/3 of RAM. > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > >
