Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, et al, > > > > Given that swap space is cheap, and that killing random processes is > > > obviously bad, it's not apparent to me why people think this is not > > > a good approach --- at least for high-reliability servers. And Linux > > > would definitely like to think of itself as a server-grade OS. > > Regrettably, few of the GUI installers for Linux (SuSE or Red Hat, for > example), include adequate swap space in their "suggested" disk formatting. > Some versions of some distributions do not create a swap partition at all; > others allocate only 130mb to this partition regardless of actual RAM. > > So regardless of what they *should* be doing, there's thousands of Linux users > out there with too little or no swap on disk ...
Yes, I have seen that on BSD's too. I am unsure if we need actual swap backing store, or just sufficient RAM to allow fork expansion for dirty pages. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
