| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:15:31 -0500 |
| 3 |
> Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I think the new method for determining swap is to use what makes sense |
| 6 |
>> and not the old rule of 'twice the ram'. |
| 7 |
> Alan's new rule of swap is: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> If you ever use swap as swap at all, find out how your machine is |
| 10 |
> misconfigured. When my 16G is "not enough" anymore, something is badly |
| 11 |
> wrong and it isn't not enough RAM and I need swap to wiggle around |
| 12 |
> in :-) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I think the 2 x RAM rule stopped being applicable when the average |
| 15 |
> machine got to more than 16M. Some old memes are like zombies - very |
| 16 |
> hard to kill. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This laptop has a "swap" partition, but it's not for swap, it's for |
| 19 |
> hibernate. And I never use it, it takes longer to come out of hibernate |
| 20 |
> than to just boot up from cold! These days I just suspend. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> None of this changes the fact that the kernel still does get upset when |
| 23 |
> it has no swap at all (even just a little bit). But that doesn't mean |
| 24 |
> we should still be using it as full-blown swap. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Yup. I have swap but I have it set to where it won't use it unless it |
| 31 |
is REALLY bad. I have swappiness set to like 20 or something. It will |
| 32 |
fill up my ram with cache and such but it rarely uses more than a few |
| 33 |
hundred kilobytes of swap. When I see it using that, I usually kill |
| 34 |
swap and add it back. I just don't like a machine with 16Gbs of ram |
| 35 |
using swap at all. I have thought about setting it to 10. Maybe then |
| 36 |
it will leave it alone until it really hits the fan. ;-) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
That said, I did roll over one night and notice that the CPU was going |
| 39 |
ape. I got up and into my chair to notice it was using almost all the |
| 40 |
ram and was starting to use a bit of swap. I switched to a console, ran |
| 41 |
htop and noticed that some KDE process was using about ~15.5Gbs of ram. |
| 42 |
It was crazy to see. I couldn't get it to die with kill -15 so I did a |
| 43 |
kill -9. I guess it had to know I really wanted it dead. It has not |
| 44 |
happened since so no clue on why it did that. Heck, it ran the same |
| 45 |
version of KDE for a good while and still didn't do it. Cosmic rays |
| 46 |
from Mars I guess. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I would recommend at least 500Mbs or so of swap regardless of ram tho. |
| 49 |
Some swap is a good idea. Just try not to use it since it is dog slow. |
| 50 |
If you are using hibernate/suspend thingys then that is different. |
| 51 |
Isn't that when it has to be at least as much swap as you have ram? |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Dale |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
:-) :-) |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives