From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FCHxs-0000Ft-Of for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:01:09 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1NEurWh024756; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:56:53 GMT Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.195]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1NEk4Jw007813 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:46:04 GMT Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 40so74378nzk for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:46:03 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=jmYiMchdCbX1vLYLIRm9+Fmhg6YgnX+FzHkOqJy0eu9utKAGTOguTvbbb1zX2XOipYPegWFAMDu/gCCp9Tml7OW+bboUyTcpii6fE/Yy/857XbjCqQ2kGCtgRDwK569AJiktwI22uWEwdjJ7vT1h28bzobqCMV4tjHLg/Wc8RE8= Received: by 10.37.21.30 with SMTP id y30mr2416860nzi; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:46:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from paradise.home ( [210.214.84.23]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 10sm529484nzo.2006.02.23.06.46.01; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:46:03 -0800 (PST) From: Abhay Kedia To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition? Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:15:51 +0530 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <28958.1140696299@www077.gmx.net> <200602231555.18509.uwix@iway.na> In-Reply-To: <200602231555.18509.uwix@iway.na> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1326788.AIMscTbkGx"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200602232016.01333.abhay.ilugd@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 13e5deb2-71a7-4fa2-a332-a347065c62f8 X-Archives-Hash: 7de2af24dcd213db1ae892bece1f2d84 --nextPart1326788.AIMscTbkGx Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 23 February 2006 19:25, Uwe Thiem wrote: > > End of rant. > I think you should read this article http://rudd-o.com/archives/2006/01/11/why-swap-is-good-even-with-tons-of-ra= m/ I don't know about you but since I started using an archck kernel, I have=20 always seen my system actually using swap. The swap prefetch patch seems to= =20 be working here and I don't mind at all. In fact it makes my system much mo= re=20 responsive. Here is the current free -m report. $ free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 495 485 9 0 61 131 =2D/+ buffers/cache: 293 202 Swap: 768 241 526 Now imagine that if I didn't have any swap space, that 241MB would have eit= her=20 been eaten up from my RAM or those files would never have been cached. In=20 first scenario, it would reduce the capability of my system to cache the=20 important files in RAM b'cos it is already full with not-so-important files= ,=20 while in the latter case the Disk IO on my system will increase whenever I= =20 needed those not-so-important files. What ever your choice might be, I=20 personally choose free RAM for better caching of files + lesser Disk IO, ev= en=20 if that means spending 768MB of HDD space. =2D-=20 Regards, Abhay --nextPart1326788.AIMscTbkGx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBD/cqpxrDNZ6sJF8cRAmIoAJ4k7oT9olfElUCnzMFFN0Ict8eqhgCeMa3l Msdon26BZsHRzIDLRWcLIfw= =65hh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1326788.AIMscTbkGx-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list