| 1 |
On Thursday 23 February 2006 19:25, Uwe Thiem wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> End of rant. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
I think you should read this article |
| 6 |
http://rudd-o.com/archives/2006/01/11/why-swap-is-good-even-with-tons-of-ram/ |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I don't know about you but since I started using an archck kernel, I have |
| 9 |
always seen my system actually using swap. The swap prefetch patch seems to |
| 10 |
be working here and I don't mind at all. In fact it makes my system much more |
| 11 |
responsive. |
| 12 |
Here is the current free -m report. |
| 13 |
$ free -m |
| 14 |
total used free shared buffers cached |
| 15 |
Mem: 495 485 9 0 61 131 |
| 16 |
-/+ buffers/cache: 293 202 |
| 17 |
Swap: 768 241 526 |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Now imagine that if I didn't have any swap space, that 241MB would have either |
| 20 |
been eaten up from my RAM or those files would never have been cached. In |
| 21 |
first scenario, it would reduce the capability of my system to cache the |
| 22 |
important files in RAM b'cos it is already full with not-so-important files, |
| 23 |
while in the latter case the Disk IO on my system will increase whenever I |
| 24 |
needed those not-so-important files. What ever your choice might be, I |
| 25 |
personally choose free RAM for better caching of files + lesser Disk IO, even |
| 26 |
if that means spending 768MB of HDD space. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
Abhay |
Archives