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