| 1 |
... |
| 2 |
>> Then why not have a really big swap file? If swap is useful as a |
| 3 |
>> second layer of caching behind RAM, why doesn't everyone with some |
| 4 |
>> extra hard drive space have a 100GB swap file? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I have 12GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on my main PC. Why? Because... why |
| 7 |
> not? :) After 5 days uptime, it actually has 89M of swap used for some |
| 8 |
> reason. It has over 10GB cached. All of my sysctl vm.* settings have |
| 9 |
> been left to the defaults. So I guess it just pushed some unused stuff |
| 10 |
> out to swap to make room for more caching. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That's what I'm curious about. If some swap is good, why isn't more |
| 13 |
better? Paul has demonstrated that a Linux system will put at least |
| 14 |
10GB to use and probably much more given the opportunity. Disk space |
| 15 |
is so cheap, why isn't everyone running a 10GB or 100GB swap since |
| 16 |
Linux will actually put it to use? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
- Grant |
Archives