| 1 |
On Samstag, 22. September 2007, Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> P.V.Anthony wrote: |
| 3 |
> >> If following the old rule, 8G should be allocated for swap. I feel |
| 4 |
> >> that is too much. Does 2.6 kernel really need so much of swap with 4G |
| 5 |
> >> of ram? |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> Was thinking of just using a 1G swap file for safety. Please share |
| 8 |
> >> some thoughts on the this swap size issue. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Please ignore this email. It looks like I have asked something similar |
| 11 |
> > to this before. I will read the old thread. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> That's Ok, I got a chuckle out of it. You have Duncan who doesn't use |
| 14 |
> swap at all (I think), and you have me: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> total used free shared buffers cached |
| 17 |
> Mem: 2058448 2041388 17060 0 82084 420860 |
| 18 |
> -/+ buffers/cache: 1538444 520004 |
| 19 |
> Swap: 17514480 1152972 16361508 |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I guess there is a happy medium. But what else am I going to do with |
| 22 |
> that odd space that doesn't fit easily into a RAID-5? I figure that if |
| 23 |
> the kernel can find a use for it I might as well let it... :) I |
| 24 |
> probably have 50G more of unpartitioned space lying around since I've |
| 25 |
> installed my 2 RAID-5s on non-identical drives. I guess I'll just have |
| 26 |
> to wait until ZFS takes off on linux... :) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
why? zfs is slow and is mixing things that should be in different layers. One |
| 29 |
argument against reiser4 always was 'it violates the layering' - well this is |
| 30 |
even more true for zfs. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
And from this numbers: |
| 33 |
http://tastic.brillig.org/~jwb/zfs-xfs-ext4.html |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
it doesn't look so great. |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives