On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, LA Walsh wrote: > > > An interesting option (though with less-than-stellar performance > > characteristics) would be a dynamically expanding swapfile. If you're > > going to be hit with swap penalties, it may be useful to not have to > > pre-reserve something you only hit once in a great while. > > This makes amazingly little sense since you'd still need to > pre-reserve the disk space the swapfile grows into. It makes roughly the same sense as over-committing memory. Both are useful, both are unreliable. Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- 2.4 and 2GB swap partition limit Matt_Domsch
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition limit Kenneth Johansson
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition limit William T Wilson
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition limit Rogier Wolff
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition limit Goswin Brederlow
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition limit Xavier Bestel
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition lim... Rogier Wolff
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition... LA Walsh
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap parti... Rik van Riel
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap parti... Thomas Dodd
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap parti... Hugh Dickins
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap parti... Rik van Riel
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap parti... Ingo Oeser
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap parti... LA Walsh
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap parti... Rogier Wolff
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition... Wakko Warner
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap parti... Rogier Wolff
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap parti... Wakko Warner
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap parti... Rogier Wolff
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap parti... J . A . Magallon
- Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap parti... Alan Cox