| 1 |
On 07/21/2011 04:49 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 21 July 2011 10:27:58 Grant did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
>>>> Thanks Paul. I'm leaning toward leaving swap disabled. So |
| 4 |
>>>> I'm sure I have the concept right, is adding a 1GB swap |
| 5 |
>>>> partition functionally identical to adding 1GB RAM with |
| 6 |
>>>> regard to the potential for out-of-memory conditions? |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> Yep. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> It sounds like adding physical RAM is better than enabling swap in |
| 11 |
>> every way. I'll stay in the anti-swap camp. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> To throw a spanner in my own works: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Some kernels *really* want at least some swap, even if it's just a |
| 16 |
> little bit. IIRC it fits the role of a bit of wiggle room for when RAM |
| 17 |
> is full. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I was waiting for this =) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Alan's previous advice (basically, everything should fit in RAM these |
| 22 |
days) is only true in a world where the VM doesn't occasionally make |
| 23 |
stupid decisions. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
In real life... |
Archives