From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IZ701-00009k-VV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:34:30 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l8MFNNmB002671; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:23:23 GMT Received: from hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de (hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.2.20]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l8MFNM9j002655 for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:23:22 GMT Received: from hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B3563207B1A for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:22:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from tu-clausthal.de (poseidon [139.174.2.21]) by hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F2F207B07 for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:22:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from energy.heim10.tu-clausthal.de (account wevah [139.174.197.94] verified) by tu-clausthal.de (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.12) with ESMTPSA id 26260968 for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:22:33 +0200 From: Volker Armin Hemmann To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] What should the swap size be for 4G ram? Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:22:31 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <46F488FA.5070104@singnet.com.sg> <46F48A5E.9050703@singnet.com.sg> <46F53191.8040204@thefreemanclan.net> In-Reply-To: <46F53191.8040204@thefreemanclan.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200709221722.31174.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> X-Virus-Scanned: by PureMessage V5.3 at tu-clausthal.de X-Archives-Salt: 5103d4d2-fc26-4be2-8aaa-616c7defc77d X-Archives-Hash: 5ec39c45426bf0ef261f691cd3ec1beb On Samstag, 22. September 2007, Richard Freeman wrote: > P.V.Anthony wrote: > >> If following the old rule, 8G should be allocated for swap. I feel > >> that is too much. Does 2.6 kernel really need so much of swap with 4G > >> of ram? > >> > >> Was thinking of just using a 1G swap file for safety. Please share > >> some thoughts on the this swap size issue. > > > > Please ignore this email. It looks like I have asked something similar > > to this before. I will read the old thread. > > That's Ok, I got a chuckle out of it. You have Duncan who doesn't use > swap at all (I think), and you have me: > > total used free shared buffers cached > Mem: 2058448 2041388 17060 0 82084 420860 > -/+ buffers/cache: 1538444 520004 > Swap: 17514480 1152972 16361508 > > I guess there is a happy medium. But what else am I going to do with > that odd space that doesn't fit easily into a RAID-5? I figure that if > the kernel can find a use for it I might as well let it... :) I > probably have 50G more of unpartitioned space lying around since I've > installed my 2 RAID-5s on non-identical drives. I guess I'll just have > to wait until ZFS takes off on linux... :) why? zfs is slow and is mixing things that should be in different layers. One argument against reiser4 always was 'it violates the layering' - well this is even more true for zfs. And from this numbers: http://tastic.brillig.org/~jwb/zfs-xfs-ext4.html it doesn't look so great. -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list