Hi, michael, list On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Michael van Elst <[email protected]> wrote: > [email protected] (hans dinsen-hansen) writes: > >>My tiny comment: What about swap? (!) >>In my opinion swap should be at least to times the size of your memory.. >>Of course, swap could be a memory-disk. > > swap on a memory disk is a bit insane :)
You could not be more right!!!! .... but some mad possibilities exist . in most - if not all - systems ;) > swap doesn't need to be the size of the memory. That was true when > the swap space was used to back the whole virtual memory, nowadays > the swap is just extra memory and can be sized for whatever out-of-memory > conditions you need to survive. Yes, you are right. Sorry, my mind was way back in the "good old days" when memory was measured in kilobytes and disk in megabytes. > > The swap partition is also used for a crash dumps. So if you want to > analyze system crashes (and you do not have your own dump partition or disk), > it still can be handy to have a swap partition that is as large as > your memory. > > >>Secondly I see no eason to divide a disk between a root partition and a >>partition for the rest. In the "good old days (when things were bad)" we had >>disk of some 60-80 MB. and whenever something grew too big, we >>had to re-arrange data via save/restore. I have spent many a night with >>that job > > True, on the other hand separate partitions help for recovery. E.g. if > /var is damaged you can still boot in single user mode. It also prevents > something like growing logfiles from filling up the whole disk, so > you can still use services that require space elsewhere. > > I tend to use a single partition on systems that I can just throw away > and reinstall when damaged. But otherwise I use a few separate partitions, > in particular for / and /var (and /tmp is a memory filesystems, so it is > separate too). ... Quite right. But I'll continue to do it my way. And you'll (hopefully) do it your way. Kind regards Hans
