Kurt Granroth wrote:
> On 12/3/09 9:39 AM, der.hans wrote:
>> Having swap be 1.5 times the size of ram is good, double the size of ram
>> is better.
>
> Those are old-school heuristics from back in the day when 32 MB was a
> lot of RAM. I stretch to think of a case where 6-8 GB of swap would
> come into play at *all*. That is, if you have a case where the system
> is using multi-gig amounts of swap, then I can almost guarantee that it
> is utterly unusable. One could say that it's there as a
> "just-in-case"... but I'm having a hard time buying that. Unusable is
> unusable. It would take so incredibly long to recover that any
> production server would have long been rebooted or managed some other way.
>
> I think I did 2x RAM up until I had 512MB and then 1x RAM until I got to
> 1GB. Then I was .5x at 2GB RAM and finally .25x now ;-)
I tend to agree with this assessment. I would expect performance to be
abysmal on any system that regularly uses 1G, or even 512M of swap. Of
course, running slowly for a little while is better than freezing.
--
-Eric 'shubes'
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)