The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm> writes: > On 09/12/2014 at 12:25 PM, Bret Busby wrote: > >> On 12/09/2014, The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm> wrote: >> >>> On 09/10/2014 at 04:00 AM, Bret Busby wrote: >> >> So, whether or not the swap partition is bigger than needed, >> should not influence the inability of the system, to use the swap >> partition, and, thence, whether or not the swap partition is too >> big, has no bearing on the problem. >> >> Correct? > > Sounds right to me. > > Unless I'm missing a twist somewhere, the only effects of having a > too-big swap partition should be: > > * Wasted disk space, which could otherwise be used for other purposes. > > * Inordinately large likelihood that the system will at some point swap > important processes out, thereby slowing down normal system operation, > because it thinks it needs to keep some huge static data in active RAM.
What or how has the size of the swap partition to do with what the system figures which data needs to be kept in RAM? The amount of RAM seems to have a much greater influence on how much RAM is being used than the size of the swap partition. I've seen seamonkey with 2GB RAM usage when 8GB was available. Now it's running on a VM that has only 2GB RAM, and seamonkey needs "only" 1GB. -- Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8738bvw7sv....@yun.yagibdah.de
