| 1 |
On 17/06/19 00:29, Grant Taylor wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Drives are cheap. The old "swap is twice ram" rule actually isn't an |
| 3 |
>> old wife's tale - the basic Unix swap mechanism NEEDS twice ram. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> No, it doesn't. Not any more. It hasn't for quite a while. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
So you didn't read what I wrote ... Par for the course :-( |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
That was a *historic* statement. It's as true today as it was ten years |
| 10 |
ago, because it's not referring to today's reality. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The basic Unix mechanism needs twice ram. It's inherent in the design of |
| 13 |
the thing. Whether linux no longer uses the Unix mechanism, or it's had |
| 14 |
the hell optimised out of it I don't know. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Either way, machines today get by on precious little swap - that's fine. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Historic note - the early linux 2.4 vanilla kernels enforced the twice |
| 19 |
ram rule - a lot of people who didn't read the release notes got nasty |
| 20 |
shocks when their machines locked up the moment they touched swap ... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And okay my machine only has 16GB of ram (and 64GB of swap - 32GB each |
| 24 |
across two disks), but I'm pretty sure that if I followed your |
| 25 |
guidelines, an emerge would crash my system as the tmpfs ran out of |
| 26 |
space ... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
And those people who wrote your guidelines? Are they the same clueless |
| 29 |
people who believe the twice ram rule is pure fiction? (As I said, it is |
| 30 |
*historical* *fact*). And why should I believe people who tell me the |
| 31 |
rule no longer applies, if they can't tell me WHY it no longer applies? |
| 32 |
I'd love to be enlightened - why can't anybody do that? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Cheers, |
| 35 |
Wol |
Archives