On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, T-SNAKE wrote:
> > It sounds much too big. I would definitely NOT have swap space more > > than about twice my physical memory. > > Seriously? I've always been told to have around 3X when this little physical > ram is involved. I have 16MB ram, but my total swap is 48MB. > What would be the reson for only 2X? I was told two-and-a-half. However, swap's mainly good for holding cached pages and the like on a desktop machine. For a file, news, or print server, a larger swap space (depending on load, of course) might be very good because you probably won't mind a little thrashing here or there. On the other hand, for a machine with which you're going to be doing interactive sessions (X, shell sessions, and the like), your machine is going to be unusably slow by the time you start using swap significantly. Those are the breaks. I have 1-1/2xRAM (1.5x32=48M) swap on my own machine (which is up and net connected 24/7), which is short of the guideline of 2-1/2. Still, I'm happy with performance so far (of the box, at least. the net connection needs some work). m. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Life is like a bad margarita with good tequila, http://squawk.klue.on.ca I thought, as I poured whiskey onto my granola Running Debian Linux 2.0 and faced a new day. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
