I want
> > > to keep, than to uninstall what I do not want to keep.And
> I stay with the
> > > 7.8gigs swap for my 8 gigs of ram.
> >
> > tried running cruft already?
>
> What about:
>
>
The reason I do it that way is simple -- I look at
> a
> > > lot of software, and it is easier to reinstall the system with what I
> want
> > > to keep, than to uninstall what I do not want to keep.And I stay with
> the
> > > 7.8gigs swap for my 8 gigs of ram.
&
I Mark this email thread as closed. :-)
der of
magnitude increase in space/speed/efficiency).
> Still, nobody replied to my question about swap file on SSD: Does it
> work, or might there possibly a problem because you have to pass the
> exact starting block numner to the kernel (as boot parameter). Can
All I can say is that my
unching the next application will just not work, and maybe some other is
faulting when it demands more pages. Except for root harddisk I/O blocking,
i've not seen a locking (as in guru) Linux in at least 10 years. But i've
always went with swap, too.
> b) Its an easy way to obtain c
On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 17:02 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
first, I assume the orgiinal poster is talking anout third party software
not coming ad .deb packages.
On 07.02.16 16:23, llcfree wrote:
Again, apologies, probably I was confused because this is a debian list.
no problem, we ha
On 07.02.16 18:45, Michael wrote:
Why dn't we just assume that Leslie knwos what he's doing ?? I mean, come
on, there are lots of possibilities, like Matus' pointed out or like he
wanted to test different desktops coming with different distros, and maybe
even how distros do their installation.
Hey folks,
Why dn't we just assume that Leslie knwos what he's doing ?? I mean, come on,
there are lots of possibilities, like Matus' pointed out or like he wanted to
test different desktops coming with different distros, and maybe even how
distros do their installation.
Going through package
On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 17:02 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 07.02.16 10:57, llcfree wrote:
> >From: llcfree
> >To: Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> >Cc: debian-laptop@lists.debian.org
> >Subject: Re: Swap
>
> I don't need private copies of the list mai
On 07.02.16 10:57, llcfree wrote:
From: llcfree
To: Matus UHLAR - fantomas
Cc: debian-laptop@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Swap
I don't need private copies of the list mail, please avoid them.
Use list-reply instead of reply to all.
On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 00:39 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fan
f software, and it is easier to reinstall the system with what I want
> > to keep, than to uninstall what I do not want to keep.And I stay with the
> > 7.8gigs swap for my 8 gigs of ram.
>
> tried running cruft already?
What about:
apt-get autoremove
which removes what is not n
what I do not want to keep.And I stay with the
7.8gigs swap for my 8 gigs of ram.
tried running cruft already?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT
On 05.02.16 23:22, Leslie S Satenstein wrote:
Older drives did not try to sustain an available free page queue. Page
recovery requires a scan. Newer SSDs maintain a discard page queue. For
older drives, the user has to manually run fstrim to reclaim used pages.
Newer drives can be set to progr
* As a sidenote, what happens if we put hibernation swap on a fast external USB
3.0 pendrive device ... doesn't that mean the data is safe even if the laptop
gets snatched ?
> That's right. I'm able to hibernate, suspend and run many applications (I
> didn't try things li
That's right. I'm able to hibernate, suspend and run many applications (I
didn't try things like creating a squashfs ) at the same time using 3.8 GB
of swap and 4gb of RAM.
I was thinking of using 6gb swap for my new installation. But now I think
in the new installation in my n
Thank you; I did not know that, and it makes for a significant swap size
reduction in nearly all cases of a desktop or laptop workstation.
The other points, I think, are not much changed. For the case Jos
Collin presented initially, (and noting his mention in another branch of
175 MB actually
Leslie, thanks you for the clarification.
Apparently, my SSDs are still first generation and i still need to TRIM by OS.
I heard of controllers with inbuilt auto-TRIM but wasn't sure if it's already
standard. It's good to know !
Are you able to configure these features in your machines BIOS (or
, all in all, a modern SSD can be used "any way you like" without
taking any special measures, just like your old HDD, and you should
expect it to perform well and live a long life. Even if it's "full" and
even if you swap to it like crazy (which won't be the case anyway,
since swap is so rarely used nowadays).
Stefan
ould try to put as much I/O as possible into RAM, for example avoid swapping
and following Matus' aboce suggestions.
('bad' meaning that once all SSD cells are filled, the drive will become much
slower. You may have noted the same effect with USB pen drives / memory sticks
Could you please give your suggestion for my questions (based on SSD) ?
On 05-Feb-2016 11:59 AM, "Jos Collin" wrote:
> I have 120GB HDD with 3.8GB swap at the moment. I have monitored the swap
> usage for sometime, running frequently used applications and then
> hibernate. I
My rule of thumb on any system is to max out the memory, then allocate
twice as much swap; hasn't let me down yet.
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
I have 120GB HDD with 3.8GB swap at the moment. I have monitored the
swap usage for sometime, running frequently used applications and then
hibernate. It uses around 175MB even after hibernation. My new SSD is
120GB and I'm having 4GB RAM now. So as per the discussion with you, I'm
p
> option, swap is where the memory image is put, and it should be at least
> as large as real memory.
Actually no: when hibernating, the requirement is that the currently
unused swap space (which should usually be pretty much the whole swap
space), be large enough to contain a *compressed
memory prices
being what they are, enough memory to hold them all, the swap
requirement is lower, and possibly zero.
In general, you do not really want to swap, ever, especially on an
interactive system. Swapping (now usually paging, which is somewhat
different) always will degrade performance, and
On Thursday, 4 Feb 2016 at 12:53, Felipe Duque wrote:
> I guess it depends on your RAM usage. Currently I have an 8GB RAM
> laptop but my usage never goes beyond 6GB (even doing scientific
> computations) so I didn't bother allocating more then 1GB for my swap
> partition.
I co
> How much swap space does 4GB ram ideally requires?
RAM doesn't require sap space. It's the lack of RAM which does.
There are typically 2 cases where you "lack" RAM:
- when you're using more memory than you have. This was historically
the justification for the
So, what you say is if you don't have, you can't hibernate?
2016-02-04 15:49 GMT-03:00 Bennett Piater :
> > I am curious: why and how? IIUC, neither suspend nor hibernate use
> > swap. Or have I misunderstood?
> >
> > Hibernate, in particular, saves every
Swap is not designed to 'increase the RAM'? So that when we don't have RAM
will use the swap?
For me the swap is only used when we don't have RAM then swap will be used
(the access is very slow because is located in disk).
2016-02-04 15:10 GMT-03:00 Eric S Fraga :
> On T
> I am curious: why and how? IIUC, neither suspend nor hibernate use
> swap. Or have I misunderstood?
>
> Hibernate, in particular, saves everything to disk so RAM should not be
> an issue. I could see, maybe, how suspend may need some swap, mind you,
> as it does use RAM bu
On 02/04/2016 07:52 PM, real bas wrote:
> So, what you say is if you don't have, you can't hibernate?
Exactly. Without swap, only suspend will work, but not hibernate.
--
GPG fingerprint: 871F 1047 7DB3 DDED 5FC4 47B2 26C7 E577 EF96 7808
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Thursday, 4 Feb 2016 at 16:12, f...@bluewin.ch wrote:
> Hi,
> swap space is crucial if you suspend or hibernate your system.
I am curious: why and how? IIUC, neither suspend nor hibernate use
swap. Or have I misunderstood?
Hibernate, in particular, saves everything to disk so RAM
> How much swap space does 4GB ram ideally requires ? I have been using the
> rule "RAM size x 2" for calculating the size of swap. But as the RAM sizes
> are bigger nowadays, is this a wrong calculation ? I mean, is it okay if I
> use 1 GB of swap space (or lesser) for a 4g
I think that's a good idea. I will create a swap file instead of a swap
partition, so that I can monitor and change it easily at a later point of
time. In that case, I will partition my SSD as a single 120GB ext4, which
is having a 5gb swap file.
On 04-Feb-2016 9:50 PM, "f...@bluewin.
I have never monitored my RAM usage. I have been allocating RAM Size x 2
until now for all my systems.
On 04-Feb-2016 9:32 PM, "Matus UHLAR - fantomas" wrote:
> On 04.02.16 21:12, Jos Collin wrote:
>
>> How much swap space does 4GB ram ideally requires ? I have been using t
Hi,
swap space is crucial if you suspend or hibernate your system. If you want
to be able to do that, your swap should be at least the same size of
your RAM. That said, the old rule "RAM size x 2" had sense some time
ago, with much smaller sizes than nowadays. Nowaday it&#x
I guess it depends on your RAM usage. Currently I have an 8GB RAM laptop
but my usage never goes beyond 6GB (even doing scientific computations)
so I didn't bother allocating more then 1GB for my swap partition.
On 02/04/2016 01:49 PM, Leslie S Satenstein
On 04.02.16 21:12, Jos Collin wrote:
How much swap space does 4GB ram ideally requires ? I have been using the
rule "RAM size x 2" for calculating the size of swap. But as the RAM sizes
are bigger nowadays, is this a wrong calculation ?
yes.
I mean, is it okay if I
use 1 GB of
than
"total RAM + swap space" size then you might want to increase swap space
(given you can't increase the RAM).
Cheers,
Babis
On 02/04/2016 03:42 PM, Jos Collin wrote:
Hello,
How much swap space does 4GB ram ideally requires ? I have been using
the rule "RAM size x
Hello,
How much swap space does 4GB ram ideally requires ? I have been using the
rule "RAM size x 2" for calculating the size of swap. But as the RAM sizes
are bigger nowadays, is this a wrong calculation ? I mean, is it okay if I
use 1 GB of swap space (or lesser) for a 4gb RAM ?
t;> anything like this. This is what I did when I found out that my RAM
> > size
> > >> is larger than my swap partition.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the options for resizing
> > > partitions without
gt; using
> >> something like qtparted? First backup all your data before you do
> >> anything like this. This is what I did when I found out that my RAM
> size
> >> is larger than my swap partition.
> >>
> >
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong,
ups. No software is 100% bug
free.
> Anyways, I think I have ruled out the low swap explanation:
>
ok.
--
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubsc
ed the script, and no it did not solve suspend to disk issues.
After a bit of searching on Google, I am pretty much sure that it is
the nvidia driver that is causing problems (and not insufficient
swap). None of the workarounds Google turned up seem to work for me,
though.
Anyways, I've
Jimmy Wu wrote:
>>From what I've read online, I get the general idea that in order to be
> able to hibernate/suspend to disk properly, the swap partition has to
> be big enough to hold all of the RAM inside it, right?
>
> Is it possible to hibernate if my swap partition i
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jimmy Wu wrote:
>
> >>From what I've read online, I get the general idea that in order to be
> > able to hibernate/suspend to disk properly, the swap partition has to
> >
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Chris Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is High memory support turned on in the kernel? This could explain why
> hibernation is working whilst you have 2gig's in the system.
>
> Processor type and features
> -> High Memory Support
>
I remember seeing suc
On 22/02/2008, Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jimmy Wu wrote:
> > From what I've read online, I get the general idea that in order to be
> > able to hibernate/suspend to disk properly, the swap partition has to
> > be big enough to hold all of the RAM i
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:11:54AM -0500, Jimmy Wu wrote:
>
> Not really what you were saying, but I suppose it might work. But
> first I have to figure out if it really is inadequate swap that's
> giving me grief.
I would assume that upon doing a fresh boot-up you would be
Jimmy Wu wrote:
> From what I've read online, I get the general idea that in order to be
> able to hibernate/suspend to disk properly, the swap partition has to
> be big enough to hold all of the RAM inside it, right?
>
> Is it possible to hibernate if my swap partition is s
ea that in order
> to be
> > > > able to hibernate/suspend to disk properly, the swap partition has
> to
> > > > be big enough to hold all of the RAM inside it, right?
> > [...]
> >
> > > Yes, you'll need to have the same sized swap as
be
> > > able to hibernate/suspend to disk properly, the swap partition has to
> > > be big enough to hold all of the RAM inside it, right?
> [...]
>
> > Yes, you'll need to have the same sized swap as RAM, although from
> > memory there is a way
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Rich Healey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Jimmy Wu wrote:
> >>From what I've read online, I get the general idea that in order to be
> > able to hibernate/suspend to disk properly, the swap partition has to
> > be big e
>From what I've read online, I get the general idea that in order to be
able to hibernate/suspend to disk properly, the swap partition has to
be big enough to hold all of the RAM inside it, right?
Is it possible to hibernate if my swap partition is smaller than my
RAM? I have 2 GB of
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:50:09 +0200, Evgeni Golov wrote:
> swap is only used for swapping (heh) and for suspend to disk. You don't
> need swap for suspend to ram
Thank you. I already dreaded moving partitions around...
--
Best Regards, Jack
Linux User #264449
Powered by Debia
On 19 Aug 2007 08:40:39 GMT Jack Malmostoso wrote:
> or is the swap not part of the suspend to ram process?
swap is only used for swapping (heh) and for suspend to disk. You don't
need swap for suspend to ram
Regards
Evgeni
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
Hello list,
I usually put my laptop (asus Z37E) to sleep (as in suspend to ram) by
closing the lid and it works just fine. When I wake it up
gnome-power-manager cares to inform me that "suspend failed", but he's
just plain wrong :)
Anyway, I have 2Gb of ram on my machine and 51
partition (logical is my preference, but no matter)
vg0 lvm2 volume group
vg0-root logical partition, root of filesystem (ext3 in my case)
vg0-swap logical partition, swap
Bob
of the rest. Therefore I create an lvm partition on
> the newly created encrypted partition. That enables a new option to
> configure lvm. Then create (at least) two logical volumes, one for
> swap and one for everything else. Then assign all of the partitions.
> This creates both swap a
n, the only thing that may happen is that any unsaved documents
will be gone and programs will no longer be as they were with suspend to ram.
That is, it would be as if I were to pull the plug from the system.
A suspend to disk failure is much worse because if the swap partition data is
curr
y mileage will not vary! I am really worried of the
> installation working and even suspend and hibernation working correctly but
> then one day, whether due to upgrade or whatnot, hibernation fails, corrupts
> swap and upon resume, corrupts my data.
While trying things I have many times
On Saturday 05 May 2007 11:56, Bob Proulx wrote:
> I recently installed Etch on two different laptops, one a T42 and the
> other a T43p. On both the encrypted installation worked perfectly and
> both were able to hibernate to encrypted swap and resume without
> trouble. It works for
Frank Ursel wrote:
> Gerardo Curiel wrote:
> > Right now, just using uswsusp , with a encrypted swap partition, it
> > works out of the box :D
> >
> > The initramfs-tools package contains the needed hooks to unlock the
> > encrypted partition with cryptsetup.It w
hibernate) is a hit or miss with an
>> encrypted swap via LUKS.
>> What is the state of of doing hibernation with encrypted swap in Debian?
>> After doing a "fresh install" using the amazing Debian installer which
>> pre-configures LUKS, what extra steps, if any,
AFAIK, uswsusp use the /sys/power/state method, but i'm not absolutely
sure.
On 5/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would rather use uswsusp and not patch the kernel.
Right now I have the following two packages installed: hibernate and
uswsusp. The hibernate package descri
On Friday 04 May 2007 13:25, Gerardo Curiel gcuriel-at-gmail.com
|debian_laptop| wrote:
> Right now, just using uswsusp , with a encrypted swap partition, it
> works out of the box :D
This sounds great, thank you.
> The initramfs-tools package contains the needed hooks to unlock the
&g
El vie, 04-05-2007 a las 13:03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> Hello,
>
> After digging around manuals, search engines and forums, I have come to the
> conclusion that trying suspend to disk (hibernate) is a hit or miss with an
> encrypted swap via LUKS.
> What is the
On Fr, Mai 04, 2007 at 01:03:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After digging around manuals, search engines and forums, I have come
> to the conclusion that trying suspend to disk (hibernate) is a hit or
> miss with an encrypted swap via LUKS.
>
> What is
Hello,
After digging around manuals, search engines and forums, I have come to the
conclusion that trying suspend to disk (hibernate) is a hit or miss with an
encrypted swap via LUKS.
What is the state of of doing hibernation with encrypted swap in Debian? After
doing a "fresh install&q
* Stefan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-26 11:37:21 +0200]:
> I guess you mean suspend-to-disk, because suspend-to-ram has no
> problem with it et all.
>
> I just get it working to resume from resume from my swap on lvm on
> cryptsetup-luks.
>
> I used the
Hello.
On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 22:50, Dave Patterson wrote:
>
> Does anybody know a good howto on suspending to an encrypted swap partition
> using cryptsetup, cryptsetup-luks, or other means?
I guess you mean suspend-to-disk, because suspend-to-ram has no
problem with it et all.
I ju
Hi, all..
Does anybody know a good howto on suspending to an encrypted swap partition
using cryptsetup, cryptsetup-luks, or other means? It would be
convenient...
--
Cheers,
Dave
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
Hello Everybody,
Is there a rule on the amount of "swap space" while trying to do a
hibernate ?
Here's my problem,
I have a Compaq Presario 2203 Notebook with kernel 2.6.11 with Debian
installed. Software Suspend (Version 1) works fine for me.
I have 768mb of RAM where as my SW
Dear Webmaster,
I visited your site and found it appropriate to be
listed at my sites-both with high PR I will be very pleased if you
will agree to exchange links with my sites.Please send me your details that
you'd like to be on my sites and I will addit ASAP Here are
the following i
Dear Webmaster,
I visited your site and found it appropriate to be
listed at my sites-both with high PR I will be very pleased if you
will agree to exchange links with my sites.Please send me your details that
you'd like to be on my sites and I will addit ASAP Here are
the following i
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 10:58:41AM +0100, Yves Rutschle wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 08:24:54PM -0700, Petro wrote:
> [Swap]
> > Actually, as cheap as disk is these days, I'd leave it alone for the
> > following reasons:
> > (1) It's cheap i
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 10:58:41AM +0100, Yves Rutschle wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 08:24:54PM -0700, Petro wrote:
> [Swap]
> > Actually, as cheap as disk is these days, I'd leave it alone for the
> > following reasons:
> > (1) It's cheap i
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Yves Rutschle wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 08:24:54PM -0700, Petro wrote:
>
> [Swap]
>> Actually, as cheap as disk is these days, I'd leave it alone for
>> the following reasons:
>>
>> (1) It's cheap insurance again
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 08:24:54PM -0700, Petro wrote:
[Swap]
> Actually, as cheap as disk is these days, I'd leave it alone for the
> following reasons:
>
> (1) It's cheap insurance against a runaway process.
How so? If your process is running away, it&#x
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Yves Rutschle wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 08:24:54PM -0700, Petro wrote:
>
> [Swap]
>> Actually, as cheap as disk is these days, I'd leave it alone for
>> the following reasons:
>>
>> (1) It's cheap insurance again
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 08:24:54PM -0700, Petro wrote:
[Swap]
> Actually, as cheap as disk is these days, I'd leave it alone for the
> following reasons:
>
> (1) It's cheap insurance against a runaway process.
How so? If your process is running away, it&#x
On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 05:24, Petro wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:45:12PM -0700, Jeff wrote:
> > Benjamin Fritzsche, 2002-Sep-20 22:27 +0200:
> > > On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 15:11, Luis Castillo wrote:
> > I 2nd that. My laptop has 256MB and I reduced the swap to 128MB
On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 05:24, Petro wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:45:12PM -0700, Jeff wrote:
> > Benjamin Fritzsche, 2002-Sep-20 22:27 +0200:
> > > On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 15:11, Luis Castillo wrote:
> > I 2nd that. My laptop has 256MB and I reduced the swap to 128MB
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:45:12PM -0700, Jeff wrote:
> Benjamin Fritzsche, 2002-Sep-20 22:27 +0200:
> > On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 15:11, Luis Castillo wrote:
> I 2nd that. My laptop has 256MB and I reduced the swap to 128MB from
> My Desktop has 256MB with 512MB swap which I'll
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:45:12PM -0700, Jeff wrote:
> Benjamin Fritzsche, 2002-Sep-20 22:27 +0200:
> > On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 15:11, Luis Castillo wrote:
> I 2nd that. My laptop has 256MB and I reduced the swap to 128MB from
> My Desktop has 256MB with 512MB swap which I'll
Benjamin Fritzsche, 2002-Sep-20 22:27 +0200:
> On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 15:11, Luis Castillo wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > my laptop runs debian woody,kernel 2418,128 MbRAM,256Mb swap and I would
> > like to upgrade to 256 MbRAM, so I should resize a swap to 512 Mb or not ?
>
Benjamin Fritzsche, 2002-Sep-20 22:27 +0200:
> On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 15:11, Luis Castillo wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > my laptop runs debian woody,kernel 2418,128 MbRAM,256Mb swap and I would
> > like to upgrade to 256 MbRAM, so I should resize a swap to 512 Mb or not ?
>
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 15:11, Luis Castillo wrote:
>
> Hi,
> my laptop runs debian woody,kernel 2418,128 MbRAM,256Mb swap and I would
> like to upgrade to 256 MbRAM, so I should resize a swap to 512 Mb or not ?
> If so, how I resize a swap without reinstall debian?
IMO if you in
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 15:11, Luis Castillo wrote:
>
> Hi,
> my laptop runs debian woody,kernel 2418,128 MbRAM,256Mb swap and I would
> like to upgrade to 256 MbRAM, so I should resize a swap to 512 Mb or not ?
> If so, how I resize a swap without reinstall debian?
IMO if you in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 20 September 2002 15:22, Daniel Lönn wrote:
> It is a de facto -standard to have the double swap as you
> have ram.
However that rule is really outdated. It was introduced when the old Unix
versions kept a full image of their RAM
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 03:11:28PM +0200, Luis Castillo wrote:
>
> Hi,
> my laptop runs debian woody,kernel 2418,128 MbRAM,256Mb swap and I would
> like to upgrade to 256 MbRAM, so I should resize a swap to 512 Mb or not ?
You don't *need* to resize the swap area when upgradin
Actually, take a look now before your memory upgrade, hos much of the
swap is actually being used. If it reaches the 50 Mb, and not more, I
would not recommend a such operation as resizing a swap. Other people
may do so, and please do whatever you feel, but have have in mind that
the swap is being
Hi,
my laptop runs debian woody,kernel 2418,128 MbRAM,256Mb swap and I would
like to upgrade to 256 MbRAM, so I should resize a swap to 512 Mb or not ?
If so, how I resize a swap without reinstall debian?
Sorry for my poor english!
--***
L.Castillo
Ph.D student
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 20 September 2002 15:22, Daniel Lönn wrote:
> It is a de facto -standard to have the double swap as you
> have ram.
However that rule is really outdated. It was introduced when the old Unix
versions kept a full image of their RAM
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 03:11:28PM +0200, Luis Castillo wrote:
>
> Hi,
> my laptop runs debian woody,kernel 2418,128 MbRAM,256Mb swap and I would
> like to upgrade to 256 MbRAM, so I should resize a swap to 512 Mb or not ?
You don't *need* to resize the swap area when upgradin
Actually, take a look now before your memory upgrade, hos much of the
swap is actually being used. If it reaches the 50 Mb, and not more, I
would not recommend a such operation as resizing a swap. Other people
may do so, and please do whatever you feel, but have have in mind that
the swap is
Hi,
my laptop runs debian woody,kernel 2418,128 MbRAM,256Mb swap and I would
like to upgrade to 256 MbRAM, so I should resize a swap to 512 Mb or not ?
If so, how I resize a swap without reinstall debian?
Sorry for my poor english!
--***
L.Castillo
Ph.D student
On Wednesday, 10 April 2002 11:16:20 -0700, Mark Barnes wrote:
> used. As I understand it, linux can use a maximum of (I think) 128 mb
> per swap partition.
This limitation used to be there in older kernels, but not any more. I
have a 512 MB swap partition and the system is able to us
On Wednesday, 10 April 2002 11:16:20 -0700, Mark Barnes wrote:
> used. As I understand it, linux can use a maximum of (I think) 128 mb
> per swap partition.
This limitation used to be there in older kernels, but not any more. I
have a 512 MB swap partition and the system is able to us
would most likely mean that one would have
> to have as much swap as physical memory and can't use more VM than
> available swap space at the time of hibernation. (This is not unlike
> VM under old SunOS, IIRC.)
<http://falcon.sch.bme.hu/~seasons/linux/swsusp.html>
If you have ti
would most likely mean that one would have
> to have as much swap as physical memory and can't use more VM than
> available swap space at the time of hibernation. (This is not unlike
> VM under old SunOS, IIRC.)
<http://falcon.sch.bme.hu/~seasons/linux/swsusp.html>
If you have ti
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
