Peter Hardy wrote: > > It's recommended that your swap space should be 2x your > RAM. In your > > case it's .2x > > Has anybody seriously made such a recommendation this millenium?
It was only briefly a good recommendation for Windows 95, which I recall ran slower when physical ram + swap went over 64Mb. If you had 64Mb, win 95 would run fastest with no swap space at all, yet the popular wisdom of "best swap size = 2x physical" just wouldn't die. There is no substitute for empirical testing. Adelle. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
