On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Torrey Hoffman wrote: > IIRC, when this discussion of swap size first came up, the general > conclusion was NOT that you should have swap = 2 * RAM, but that you > should have swap(2.4.x) = 2 * swap(2.2.x), that is, twice as much swap > as you did under 2.2.x. it seems to me that in 2.2.x it looks like this: total usage == swap + RAM under 2.4.x it looks like: total usage == swap > So if you never swapped at all under 2.2.x, you should not need any > swap space in 2.4.x either. Right. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thing? Rik van Riel
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thing? Mike Harrold
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thing? Rik van Riel
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thing? christophe barbe
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thing? Rik van Riel
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thi... christophe barbe
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thi... James Lewis Nance
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent... Rik van Riel
- kernel benchmark gis88530
- RE: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thing? Torrey Hoffman
- RE: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thing? William T Wilson
- RE: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thing? Rik van Riel
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thi... LA Walsh
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent... Rik van Riel
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thi... Andrzej Krzysztofowicz
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent... Rik van Riel
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a perm... Guennadi Liakhovetski
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thi... Boris Pisarcik
- Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent... Alexander Viro