| 1 |
On Friday, July 22 at 11:46 (-0700), Grant said: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> That's what I'm curious about. If some swap is good, why isn't more |
| 4 |
> better? Paul has demonstrated that a Linux system will put at least |
| 5 |
> 10GB to use and probably much more given the opportunity. Disk space |
| 6 |
> is so cheap, why isn't everyone running a 10GB or 100GB swap since |
| 7 |
> Linux will actually put it to use? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
Vitamin C is good for you, but if you take a whole bottle of vitamin C |
| 10 |
tablets you will die :P |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Seriously... I think you are just not understanding what is being said |
| 13 |
(or maybe just trying to over-generalize it). There is never a time I'm |
| 14 |
using 100G of vm at one time, so why do i need 100G of swap? Sure, I |
| 15 |
could create a 100G swap partition, but the kernel is *never* going to |
| 16 |
need to use 100G of swap at once (unless I have a *seriously* broken |
| 17 |
app), so why bother? Moreover, 100G is going to take a LONG time to |
| 18 |
swap in/out (remember disk is slower than RAM). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
What we are saying is, swap is good for certain conditions (which I |
| 22 |
don't feel like explaining again). |
Archives