| 1 |
On Thursday 21 July 2011 10:27:58 Grant did opine thusly: |
| 2 |
> >> Thanks Paul. I'm leaning toward leaving swap disabled. So |
| 3 |
> >> I'm sure I have the concept right, is adding a 1GB swap |
| 4 |
> >> partition functionally identical to adding 1GB RAM with |
| 5 |
> >> regard to the potential for out-of-memory conditions? |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Yep. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> It sounds like adding physical RAM is better than enabling swap in |
| 10 |
> every way. I'll stay in the anti-swap camp. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
To throw a spanner in my own works: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Some kernels *really* want at least some swap, even if it's just a |
| 15 |
little bit. IIRC it fits the role of a bit of wiggle room for when RAM |
| 16 |
is full. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It came up the last time we all discussed this topic, but I no longer |
| 19 |
have those mails. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If you can determine the appropriate amount, I'd recommend a small |
| 22 |
swap *file* if you decide to go this route. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives