On Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:41:02 -0800 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: > on Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:01:44PM -0600, Dave Sherohman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 09:35:16PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > a couple of days ago a was configuring a bunch of boxes with 1G ram > > > and i allocated 1G of swap, because my boss said so. a co-worker then > > > told me that the appropriate amount of swap to allocate should be > > > twice the ram. i really don't see the point of having the swap to be > > > twice the size of ram, especially since i have 1G of it. there must > > > be a point of diminishing return regarding swap allocation. is there > > > even a point of allocating swap on a system with 1G ram if so what's > > > the magic size?
1GB is lots of RAM. As you are talking about a bunch of boxes, what I would try to do is to set up one box with a swap say twice this and run the box as it is going to be used. The program free(1) can show how much memory/swap is being used. I have no idea what these machines will be used for, but my nose tells me that you are not using 1GB. Try to observe this a reasonable amount of time. If it never reaches swap, say 500MB, you could do it perfectly without swap. If you come close to use all, adding 1GB of swap should be more than plenty. [...] > The advantage: it's easier to add memory (pop in a few sticks) than to > reassign and repartition disk. If you start off a system with 2-3x > memory as swap, you'll have some proportional room to fill as you > ratchet up your memory over time. I've gone from roughly three times > swap to 1.5 times as I've upped my system memory from 96 MB to 256 MB. > I've still got a healthy proportion, without having to repartition. IMHO 1GB is not really a low-end system nowadays; I believe that before upgrading memory of such a system, you'll be upgrading the whole machine. On the other hand, Linux has no troubles with more than one swap partition; you can even use swap files. The point here is, that a system actually using so much RAM would not easily go by with the lack of speed using constant swap. Again IMHO, I wouldn't worry too much about upgrades; you need it working now. > In tight situations, you can always add swapfiles as an emergency > measure, though these are less efficient than dedicated partitions. You could even add a whole HD just for swap (if really needed). -- Christoph Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ^X^C q quit :q ^C end x exit ZZ ^D ? help shit .
