Hi
I know what "swapoff -a" will do if there is data laying on the
swap-partition; but the intention should be to have _NO_ processes (or
whatever) being swapped out.
At work we got much HP-Workstations and -Servers; everyone got a
swap-partition which is of same size as physical memory (or even
bigger).
But if they begin to swap performance goes down to nearly 0% - even the
HP need swap-partitions for allocating at bootup, but we intend that
they _NEVER_ swap.
Therefore we use much memory on each machine - and we do also on our
linux-machines.
You know what I mean? I think there is no need to spend money for a
second (third) disk to build a raid1-swap (or raid5), because more
memory will be cheaper.
Also, I see the "danger" that a swap-disk fails - but how worse is it if
there is "only" a few kB swap on it?
May - it is just my point of view.
Greetings, Dietmar
D. Lance Robinson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> You can run a system without a swap device. But if you do 'swapoff -a'
> _after_ a swap device failure, you are dead (if swap had any virtual
> data stored in it.)
>
> 'swapoff -a' copies virtual data stored in the swap device to physical
> memory before closing the device. This is much different than losing
> access to the swap data due to a failure.
>
> <>< Lance.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Hm,
> >
> > I understand the necessary of redundancy; but isn't it the same
> > if you do a swapoff -a or swap-disks dies on a system?
> > What I have in mind is the thing, that the system should not swap
> > at all, so that it is necessary to have as much memory (RAM) as
> > possible.
--
"For those about to rock - we salute you!"
Dietmar Stein, Systemadministrator UNIX/Linux
http://home.t-online.de/home/dstein2203
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
