On Jul 04 10:57:45, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:06:37PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote: > > > > this is another problem. configure > > > swap to be double the RAM size, or if you insist on loading the > > > machine about 4 times the RAM size. you obviously forgot to or didn't > > > want to configure swap. > > > > is the "twice the RAM" mantra still valid today? > > No, that only makes sense for relatively small systems. The disklabel > auto allocation policy uses a max size if 2x physmem for physmem < > 256M. Otherwise it allocates a bit more than physical mem size.
Well, this machine has 128M - does that mean that having 256M of swap would make my system generally better? > Running without swap should be no problem, though you might hit code > paths otherwise not taken, so there is an buigger chance you'll find > bugs. If that is good or not depends on your personal perspective. On machines that are not as "fixed" as the ALIX (128M soldered on board), I try to have enough RAM to not ever have to swap. I will probably reinstall this ALIX with 256M swap and see if this problem disappears. Before I do that, are there any hints on these code paths not usually taken, such as how I might hit this more often on a smallmem machine such as this? Or any specific tests? Jan