on Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 04:33:45AM -0800, Karsten M. Self
(kmself@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
on Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 07:21:20AM +, Alexis Huxley ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On 2004-10-21, Gilbert, Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Think about it, if you want to dramatically improve the
on Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 07:21:20AM +, Alexis Huxley ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On 2004-10-21, Gilbert, Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
taken for rote. I was told back when I first started working with Unix that
the swap space needed to be at least twice the size of physical memory in
On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 04:33 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 07:21:20AM +, Alexis Huxley ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On 2004-10-21, Gilbert, Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Oh, and why 2-3x RAM to start? Because you can add memory to a system
pretty
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gilbert, Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is an issue that I do not fully understand that I have always kind of
taken for rote. I was told back when I first started working with Unix that
the swap space needed to be at least twice the size
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Johnno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have 131 meg of memory and a swap of about 100megs..
Ouch. You might see some performance gains from a bit more swap,
since you'll be able to swap more of what's not actively running out,
allowing for more
On 2004-10-21, Gilbert, Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
taken for rote. I was told back when I first started working with Unix that
the swap space needed to be at least twice the size of physical memory in
order to ensure a stable system.
I believe this was just a rule of thumb when memory
-Original Message-
From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, that used to be the rule of thumb for a Linux-specific problem
with swap space. Today, you can run without swap without a problem.
I keep a gig of swap on hand to avoid out of memory problems at all
costs and have
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 12:03:42AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
Gilbert, Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is an issue that I do not fully understand that I have always kind of
taken for rote. I was told back when I first started working with Unix that
the swap space needed to be at
On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 21:42 +0100, Pigeon wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 12:03:42AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
Gilbert, Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
Well, boards that can take 4G are common these days, but there's a
limit of 2G on swap size (at least up to 2.4; don't know
Hi all,
There is an issue that I do not fully understand that I have always kind of
taken for rote. I was told back when I first started working with Unix that
the swap space needed to be at least twice the size of physical memory in
order to ensure a stable system.
Is this truly the case? How
On Thursday 21 October 2004 03:55 pm, Gilbert, Joseph wrote:
Hi all,
There is an issue that I do not fully understand that I have always
kind of taken for rote. I was told back when I first started working
with Unix that the swap space needed to be at least twice the size of
physical memory
this issue but I could just be
overcomplicating the issue in my head.
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Scarletdown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: swap space size
On Thursday 21 October 2004 03:55 pm, Gilbert, Joseph wrote
Joe writes:
I was told back when I first started working with Unix that the swap
space needed to be at least twice the size of physical memory in order to
ensure a stable system.
Is this truly the case?
Not any more.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
I have 131 meg of memory and a swap of about 100megs..
The system is ran as a server..
- Original Message -
From: Gilbert, Joseph
Hi all,
There is an issue that I do not fully understand that I have always kind
of
taken for rote. I was told back when I first started working with
14 matches
Mail list logo
