On Thu March 25 2004 09:30, Kevin Anderson wrote: > On March 24, 2004 04:44 pm, Andrew Graupe wrote: > > I will be setting up a new linux system in the near future, and I am > > deciding what FS to use. I will probably use a 50MB /boot partition, a > > 256MB swap and the rest will be given to the root partition. I plan to > > I was a bit suprised by it, but I found that on a desktop, I needed a huge > freaking swapfile. That may well be because I'm a bit of a moron when I > first get the thing set up, and I emerge a zillion packages at the same > time. Most of our servers here don't need a swap partition at all (thought > they all have).
Can anyone speak to any of the classic swap file myths (that tend to change between kernel versions) such as: Linux never uses more than 128M of swap (which is what I have now, using kernel 2.6)? I've put my desktop system into extreme loads (accidentally) a couple of times and wondered if my swap size was what it was choking on. I ended up killing X to restore sanity (sure beats a reboot ;-) but I'd rather not have to even do that. Curtis _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
