On 04/02/2017 18:12, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Size of swap is the classic cargo-cult question, > > ++ > >> >> Modern kernels DO get nervous if they have no swap at all - it's used >> internally. So make a small amount of swap to make the kernel happy, say >> 64M or so. Yes, megs. >> > > So, uh, I'd be interested in some kind of citation for this, mainly > because it also sounds a bit like cargo cult advice. :)
hehe, clever. I saw what you did there :-) You can cite me, and my own observations on my and my employers' machines - I routinely add a 64M swap partition as a first cut and have no problems with it so far. If a machine runs out of memory, I add more (most work servers are VMs so adding more is trivial). If that is ideal, or a good value, I have no idea as I wasn't writing a research paper, rather finding an empirical value that worked > What exactly doesn't work without swap, because I've been running > without it for years? I really should revisit this topic with current kernels, my fiddling was done some time ago and things may well have changed. I recall getting some error that only having a small swap fixed. Lousy answer, I know, so if anyone has real current facts, I'm all ears. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
