On Tue, 7 May 2002 11:28:15 +0530 [EMAIL PROTECTED] quietly intimated: > > Placed At : > > > Size of swap partition is usually recommended to be 2 * (size of ram). > But recently i went thru one article wherein it was mentioned that > redhat linux wont be looking to swap beyond 128mb even though we give > the swap partition size of much more than that. > I have here a dell poweredge 2450 box with twin pentium-3 733hz > processors and 1gb ram. > It really makes me wonder whether I should give it 2gb swap space ..?? > Any advices please ?? > > Thanks, > Ramesh C Pathak
This keeps coming up, and I don't know why people keep writing it and confusing people. In the 2.2.X kernel I was doing some heavy duty compiling once. I had at that time about 500MB swap. The compile kept failing (not to mention the system was running really slow in the interim). I finally added another 500MB swap just to test things. The compile completed successfully. This was with 96MB hard RAM. The extra 500MB should have been overkill and unused swap. Other than compiling that one program it mostly sat useless. But, the points are, the claim you read is false, and the amount needed can (but seldom does to a large degree) vary with the conditions. The rule of thumb is, 2-2.5 times RAM. I currently have 384MB installed and 1GB swap. Most of my swap never gets used under most conditions. I've had it up to about 700MB used once in the last 6 months. This on a 2.4.X kernel which supposedly makes even more use of swap than the 2.2.X kernels did. Do you need all of that swap space? I don't know. The rule would say yes, though I admit it sure sounds like a lot. Maybe someone else can shed some light on that. I personally wanted to go after the 128MB myth. That was true at one time (sort of). That hasn't been true for quite some time. -- A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking. _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
