[ale] that same darn NFS problem SOLVED

[Chris Ricker]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Michael D. Hirsch wrote:

> On Monday 17 February 2003 02:30 pm, Chris Ricker wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> > > With a 2.4.x kernel and RAM <=4G swap=2xRAM
> >
> > That's not necessary. There was a bug in early 2.4.x that required
> > swap=2xRAM for decent performance, but that's long since been fixed...
> >
> > You need enough swap to hold your working set. That could be anything
> > from no swap to gigabytes, depending on what you do on that system....
> 
> Right, but the rational I heard is 
> 
> 1.  Having swap doesn't hurt
> 2.  Unless you have so many processes and so much swap space that you get 
> swap bound
> 3. swap = 2 x RAM is a reasonable heuristic.  If you use much more than 
> that you are probably swap bound, but up to that amount could really 
> happen without getting swap bound.

The flip side is that on my box with 6 gigs of RAM which never swaps
anyway, wasting 12 gigs of disk space is pointless.... You're right
though in that disk space is relatively cheap (on most systems) and
it doesn't really hurt. I just don't like it getting presented as a
hard and fast rule, because it's not on modern systems....

later,
chris
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale