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 1FCJFf-0005MA-6T for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:23:35 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1NGMXWp017405; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:22:33 GMT Received: from vms040pub.verizon.net (vms040pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.40]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1NGIUQ6000529 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:18:31 GMT Received: from mail.joat.com ([71.114.144.163]) by vms040.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0IV5000OWEICFBM2@vms040.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:15:48 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (cornholio.joat.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.joat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C91011567D for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:15:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.joat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.joat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24651-05 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:15:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dnebing.tbbgl.com [141.151.196.13]) by mail.joat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:15:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:12:47 -0500 From: Dave Nebinger Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition? In-reply-to: <7573e9640602230803r4ca91fbx8cac9c94e1da4476@mail.gmail.com> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Message-id: <43FDDEFF.9000502@joat.com> 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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at joat.com References: <28958.1140696299@www077.gmx.net> <200602231555.18509.uwix@iway.na> <43FDC6FA.1060807@joat.com> <7573e9640602230803r4ca91fbx8cac9c94e1da4476@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060130 SeaMonkey/1.0 X-Archives-Salt: 1efbb912-b37f-4918-9e1c-4ef1466cfd63 X-Archives-Hash: b5bd126fd589feb039caf43c4e44dd65 Richard Fish wrote: > On 2/23/06, Dave Nebinger wrote: >> This is never true. Swap is *always* called for, and for a good reason. > > No, it isn't. For my single-user laptop with 2G of RAM, I actually > prefer that the OOM kill any runaway process that is gobbling up RAM. > My laptop disk (even at 7200rpm) is too damn slow for swap to be at > all useful. The system _will_ be dead until swap is exhausted and the > OOM kicks in anyway. The only reason I have a swap partition at all > is for suspend2 hibernation. > But again you have shown that swap is *always* called for. You've got 2gb ram, yet you still need swap for hibernation. >> Your example of having a real-time responsive app requiring memory >> residence is a determining factor of how much physical memory you'll >> need to keep the app resident. >> >> But the truth of the matter is this will not be your only app running on >> the system. Throw some big memory hogs into play, i.e. an active X >> session running locally and that remote X session you've started from >> work, and pretty soon you can find yourself eating up that 1gb that you >> thought would be fine. > > No one would ever place a real-time responsive app on a desktop system. So if your argument is that it would only go on a server, are you also arguing that it would only go on a dedicated server? Or is it a multi-function server that's also running perhaps a web server, an app server, an email server, ftp server, etc.? The addition of any sort of server which spawns threads in response to incoming network connection means that you've got a variable memory consumer which could, should incoming load require, a potential chance to overwhelm physical memory. Same situation, just a different scenario. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list