> emm, from my very personal point of view: no > > swap is horrible slow. Its use must be avoided at any cost. Swap sucks. > Everything is faster than accessing swap. So hitting the disk to read or > write some files is IMHO better than hitting the disk to shove X into swap. > > X in swap is another problem. You can be sure, if X is forced into swap, > because gcc uses up all ram for itself, everything sucks. Mouse is jerky, > windows need ages to get displayed. > > Everything that makes swapping more likely is bad advise and shall be > avoided.
I'm that opinion too. Particularly when system and swap are on the same disk. And even if swap and system are located on different disks, it's one of the worst things that can happen to the performance of a system. Anyway, I've never experienced such behaviour since I've always had enough ram. And I never set portage niceness. Even on desktops with single cores, 100Hz timer frequency and without kernel preemption the system was responsive. I think if a system gets "freezes" it must have something to do with heavy IO-load and to less main memory. Rgds Bernhard -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
