"Brandon D. Valentine" wrote: > Allocating swap = physical RAM doesn't buy you any expansion though. I > always try to do at least twice physical RAM so that if I ever double > the RAM in my machine I'm still able to catch crash dumps. It's not > worth having to repartition the drive to add more swap every time I add > more RAM when a 120GB 7.2k drive is ~$170. What's 2GB of swap on a > 120GB disk or even a 40GB disk for that matter?
2G of swap on a 40G disk is 5%. This is the same amount that people are unwilling to "give up" for the free reserve in order to permit the FFS block allocation algorithm to go from a 95% fill rate to a 90% fill rate, upping the effective efficiency by a factor of ~8. "Sure, it's more efficient for the *computer*, but I buy disk space for *me*; if the *computer* want's more disk space, it can get a job and buy its own damn disk space!". I think the main problem is "old people" can't get into their heads anything but "2G is 1250 times as big as the whole frigging hard disk on my first computer! I'm *NOT* giving up that much space!" (speaking as a person whose first computer had only paper tape for "mass storage"). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
