| 1 |
On Thursday 21 July 2011 19:19:07 Michael Orlitzky did opine thusly: |
| 2 |
> On 07/21/2011 04:49 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 21 July 2011 10:27:58 Grant did opine thusly: |
| 4 |
> >>>> Thanks Paul. I'm leaning toward leaving swap disabled. |
| 5 |
> >>>> So |
| 6 |
> >>>> I'm sure I have the concept right, is adding a 1GB swap |
| 7 |
> >>>> partition functionally identical to adding 1GB RAM with |
| 8 |
> >>>> regard to the potential for out-of-memory conditions? |
| 9 |
> >>> |
| 10 |
> >>> Yep. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> It sounds like adding physical RAM is better than enabling |
| 13 |
> >> swap in every way. I'll stay in the anti-swap camp. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > To throw a spanner in my own works: |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Some kernels *really* want at least some swap, even if it's just |
| 18 |
> > a little bit. IIRC it fits the role of a bit of wiggle room for |
| 19 |
> > when RAM is full. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I was waiting for this =) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Alan's previous advice (basically, everything should fit in RAM |
| 24 |
> these days) is only true in a world where the VM doesn't |
| 25 |
> occasionally make stupid decisions. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> In real life... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
:-) You caught me out. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
As I was typing all these posts today I was having these haunting |
| 32 |
thoughts about RealLife .... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives