On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 07:51:06PM -0600, Ryan McDougall wrote: > In your case... Id probably set it to 512, or 1024 depending on how > much disk space you can spare.
I was thinking about this more this afternoon. I was imagining buying a frugal but killer box. Say I picked up a parts catelogue with the intention of spending some money wisely. What would I do? I might buy this: their best dual CPU motherboard, a pair of the fastest CPUs available (or second fastest?--sometimes the bleeding edge costs too much for too little), as much RAM as it would accept (say, 6 GB), a fast dual headed video card, 4 of those 300+ GB hard drives arrayed in a software raid 0+1 giving me 600+ GB of fast disk space. Obviously throw in heatsinks, a case, et al. How much swap would I give that? It would depend upon what I was doing. If doing kernel compiles and general purpose web browsing I might give it 2 GB--way less than my total RAM. OK, maybe 4 GB. If I wanted to do video (or HDTV) production (Linux is finally getting there) and rotoscoping (retouching) I would try it with no swap and see how it worked. But say I wanted to start computing fancy 3-D sequences, might big renderings want to work their way through big datasets and benefit from a lot of swap? Or would this benefit not kick in until we get to 64-bit CPUs and their bigger address space? I am starting to think that a single gigabyte of swap is pretty well sized to the current Linux kernels. -kb -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
