1 |
On 23 February 2006 18:12, Dave Nebinger wrote: |
2 |
> Richard Fish wrote: |
3 |
> > On 2/23/06, Dave Nebinger <dnebinger@××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> >> This is never true. Swap is *always* called for, and for a good reason. |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > No, it isn't. For my single-user laptop with 2G of RAM, I actually |
7 |
> > prefer that the OOM kill any runaway process that is gobbling up RAM. |
8 |
> > My laptop disk (even at 7200rpm) is too damn slow for swap to be at |
9 |
> > all useful. The system _will_ be dead until swap is exhausted and the |
10 |
> > OOM kicks in anyway. The only reason I have a swap partition at all |
11 |
> > is for suspend2 hibernation. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> But again you have shown that swap is *always* called for. You've got |
14 |
> 2gb ram, yet you still need swap for hibernation. |
15 |
|
16 |
I don't use hibernation. ;-) |
17 |
|
18 |
> |
19 |
> >> Your example of having a real-time responsive app requiring memory |
20 |
> >> residence is a determining factor of how much physical memory you'll |
21 |
> >> need to keep the app resident. |
22 |
> >> |
23 |
> >> But the truth of the matter is this will not be your only app running on |
24 |
> >> the system. Throw some big memory hogs into play, i.e. an active X |
25 |
> >> session running locally and that remote X session you've started from |
26 |
> >> work, and pretty soon you can find yourself eating up that 1gb that you |
27 |
> >> thought would be fine. |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> > No one would ever place a real-time responsive app on a desktop system. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> So if your argument is that it would only go on a server, are you also |
32 |
> arguing that it would only go on a dedicated server? Or is it a |
33 |
> multi-function server that's also running perhaps a web server, an app |
34 |
> server, an email server, ftp server, etc.? |
35 |
|
36 |
You wouldn't run such an app on a server that offers services like FTP or |
37 |
such. |
38 |
|
39 |
I was actually involved in a project once that did that kind of stuff on a |
40 |
desktop. It was a dedicated desktop, though. ;-) |
41 |
|
42 |
Your main argument is that one needs swap as a safety net if one runs out of |
43 |
ram. So you have, say 1 GB of ram and 1 GB of swap. What if you run out of |
44 |
swap? Or: If that 1GB of swap on top of your 1GB of ram is enough for you to |
45 |
never run out of swap, what's wrong with replaces it with another 1GB of ram |
46 |
if you can afford it? Where is the bloody difference, except that you get a |
47 |
faster box? |
48 |
|
49 |
Uwe |
50 |
|
51 |
-- |
52 |
Why do consumers keep buying products they will live to curse? |
53 |
-- |
54 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |