Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Jun 2007 10:06:26 +0200 (MEST) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: To swap or not to swap? |
| |
On Jun 5 2007 00:35, Mike Richards wrote: > > In my research on this matter I've come across various comments by > people saying that getting rid of swap entirely will hurt performance > somehow, but on these servers I'm seeing very little swap used in the > first place, so I'm not seeing how that's really possible. But to > avoid that being an issue, let's suppose I give each server 32MB of > swap to cover the occasional usage. Is there any reason *not* to go > the route of minimizing swap in order to also minimize downtime?
Generally yes. You want as much swap as the base daemons/programs take up in RAM. Any [user] program should probably be allowed to max out your physical RAM - the daemons go to swap in the meanwhile (mostly works with idle servers). A program that requires more memory than physically present is anyway going to swap in and out sometime later, degrading performance to a halt, as you describe.
> The consensus these days seems to be that since hard drives are so big > now, go with a gig or more of swap even if you have plenty of RAM. > However, the way I'm seeing it is this: What's the point of having a > gig of swap if it only gets used during the worst possible time? > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |