| 1 |
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Grant <emailgrant@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
>> ... |
| 3 |
>>>> Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a |
| 4 |
>>>> second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some |
| 5 |
>>>> extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file? |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> I have 12GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on my main PC. Why? Because... why |
| 8 |
>>> not? :) After 5 days uptime, it actually has 89M of swap used for some |
| 9 |
>>> reason. It has over 10GB cached. All of my sysctl vm.* settings have |
| 10 |
>>> been left to the defaults. So I guess it just pushed some unused stuff |
| 11 |
>>> out to swap to make room for more caching. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Uh oh. Did I misunderstand you Paul? Do you have 10GB cached in swap or RAM? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> - Grant |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> That's what I'm curious about. If some swap is good, why isn't more |
| 19 |
>> better? Paul has demonstrated that a Linux system will put at least |
| 20 |
>> 10GB to use and probably much more given the opportunity. Disk space |
| 21 |
>> is so cheap, why isn't everyone running a 10GB or 100GB swap since |
| 22 |
>> Linux will actually put it to use? |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> - Grant |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
In RAM. Total swap usage was only 89M. |
Archives