From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93459139083 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:13:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 813EAE0FB0; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:13:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost03c.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost03c.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 278B0E0E8B for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:13:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.69.80.10] (helo=peak.localnet) by smarthost03c.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1eMDyP-0008Fr-Aq for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:13:25 +0000 From: Peter Humphrey To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it? Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:13:24 +0000 Message-ID: <2163425.EpC7bA8mPK@peak> In-Reply-To: <5A26A5D2.4050104@youngman.org.uk> References: <6b5fbeca-453c-f103-5e4e-a8db83a6dabf@st.com> <7155996.JnYQhvlp2Z@peak> <5A26A5D2.4050104@youngman.org.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Originating-smarthost03c-IP: [82.69.80.10] Feedback-ID: 82.69.80.10 X-Archives-Salt: f1194c01-9ff7-4bc3-919c-ff57a030f864 X-Archives-Hash: 18783a5bdd56c3075d2e2ac13a141ba8 On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 13:57:38 GMT Wols Lists wrote: > I've just had a long thread with someone on the SUSE list who refuses to > believe that the "twice ram" rule ever existed. >=20 > This despite someone else actually describing the algorithm (from which > one can see where the rule comes from), and me pointing out that (after > Linus stripped out all the "awful" optimisation code) the early vanilla > 2.4 kernels enforced this rule by crashing if you broke it. >=20 > Swap was rewritten as a result of that, but I've never heard whether the > fundamental algorithm was changed, so I still provision my systems on > the assumption it's true. Disk is cheap ... my 4TB drives cost about > =A3110, so that makes 128GB for swap cost, what, =A33? I'll probably never > need it, but hey, at that price :-) Ah, but it's a different kettle of fish if you're using LVMe SSD! :) Mine is 256GB and doesn't have an awful lot of spare capacity, what with=20 BOINC and being the compile host for two other boxes. =2D-=20 Regards, Peter.