On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:54:23 -0500 "Kevin - Your.Org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Stefan Esser wrote: > > > Vladimir Terziev schrieb: > >> You're right, > >> > >> the swap, typically configured, is much more than the > >> amount of the video memory, but in fact the swap is just a > >> reserv, which ensures continuation of the normal operations on > >> the machine, at times of peak loads. > >> In our days the amount of RAM placed in the servers is > >> so much, that the swap, in fact, is rarely used at all and a > >> very small amount of it (several MB) is used. In that cases > >> having a very fast swap space in the Video RAM, in addition to > >> the disk swap, would be a good solution. > > > > If you have a video card with so much excess memory, that you > > can use it > > for swap, then I wonder whether the video card has not been much > > too expensive ;-) > > > > How about spending $25 for another Gigabyte of RAM (real RAM, > > not SWAP) > > instead? > > > > I'm not commenting on if this is a good idea or not either way, > but at least one vendor of servers that we've been buying from is > now including 128 or 256MB of video ram(not UMA, real video ram) > embedded on the motherboard now. > > I thought it was odd too, until I asked our sales rep. The 8MB ATI > chipset they used to use would have disqualified them from being > "Vista Capable". > > So, whether we want it or not, we're getting at least 128MB of > video memory on our servers now. I'd thought about trying to use it > for something, but decided it wasn't worth the effort. :) I still doubt this will become common as I don't see many servers going in with Vista on it. _______________________________________________ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
