Re: new memory = more swap?

From: Matt Morgan (matt.morgan-fedora-list_at_brooklynmuseum.org)
Date: 03/25/04

  • Next message: J. Scott Amort: "Re: Upgrading Mozilla to 1.7" 
    Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:09:17 -0500
To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@redhat.com>

    On 03/25/2004 01:50 PM, John Thompson wrote:

    >Craig Thomas wrote:
    >
    >>I have 256MB ram and a 502MB swap, and want to increase to 384MB
    >>ram, [i know, i know it's an old machine]. I've read in the RH
    >>manual and else where that double the amount of ram is "right". If
    >>I want more swap but don't have any unpartitioned space left, what
    >>are my options? (I do, however, have lots of free space on my
    >>drive).
    >>
    >>
    >The advice that swap=2(RAM) dates from the time when RAM was expensive and few user machines had more than 64MB.
    >
    >These days most people have plenty of RAM and thus require less swap space. I have 384MB RAM and a 256MB swap partition that is seldom more than 25% used.
    >
    >
    >
    Is it still also true, though, that swap should at a minimum = RAM (this
    is knowledge that dates back to early versions of SCO, which was weird
    anyway, I know)? If so, then having more swap than RAM may be worthwhile
    anyway, because you probably have plenty of disk space, and you might
    add RAM later (and you won't have to repartition at that point if you
    have extra swap).

    I realize it's also a lot easier to repartition these days, too. But I
    still like to avoid it.

    Can you have too much swap? (Disk space issues aside). If I have 512 Mb
    of RAM, and set up a 1Gb swap partition, did I make a mistake? 

    -- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
  • Next message: J. Scott Amort: "Re: Upgrading Mozilla to 1.7"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: running Linux with no swap space (but lots of RAM)
      ... |>| It's a statement of fact: You are advocating to save disk space at the ... |>| expense of RAM. ... what would have to be running to make use of 256 GB of swap? ... |>A page that is dirty and would get swapped out can instead take up RAM ...
      (comp.os.linux.development.system)
    • Re: Keeping the swapfile in a separate partition
      ... > Very wasteful of disk space. ... I run a computer in a single user environment and edit large graphics ... When the swap file is set to vary between X & Y the ... With 2GB of RAM, the swap, on a single drive system, ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
    • Re: running Linux with no swap space (but lots of RAM)
      ... |>> to dirty, but inactive pages associated with some applications. ... | It's a statement of fact: You are advocating to save disk space at the ... | expense of RAM. ... what would have to be running to make use of 256 GB of swap? ...
      (comp.os.linux.development.system)
    • Re: Keeping the swapfile in a separate partition
      ... I just purchased a 120 GB HD for 33 cents a GB. ... You guys are debating wheater to use 10, 15 or 25 cents worth of disk space ... Make it 1.5X the RAM and be done with it. ... When the swap file is set to vary between X & Y the ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
    • Re: excessive swap-in time
      ... Trying to do it all with RAM is just inefficient. ... I find that does not work well when the swapping is caused by excessive I/O ... Or you could have 5 TB of swap space. ...
      (comp.os.linux.development.system)