Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
WHats your Swap Size?
Master of Reality:
quote:Originally posted by void main:
Having the swap on the least utilized drive would be best as you have it. I'm not sure if spreading the swap out across a utilized drive and a non-utilized drive would increase or decrease the performance. I guess it would depend on how utilized the drive is, but I am not sure of the logic that the kernel uses. I believe it to be much like RAID striping if using more than one swap partition at the same priority, but not sure.
--- End quote ---
mine is on the least utilized drive.. but the boot partition is also on that drive so it may not be as fast while booting (if while booting it uses the swap).
DC:
I have 512MB physical RAM and 500-or-so MB swap (on the main 40 GB drive, the other one is less used but older/slower).
I always thought swap wasn't used in Linux unless it's needed, so it wouldn't slow stuff down, which explains that swap usage tends to stay low (almost always 0, rises to ~10MB during heavy disk usage like copying 5GB partitions).
Windows is different - it always seemed to use at least 150 swap.
[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: DC ]
voidmain:
quote:Originally posted by The Master of Reality / B0B:
mine is on the least utilized drive.. but the boot partition is also on that drive so it may not be as fast while booting (if while booting it uses the swap).
--- End quote ---
You shouldn't be getting into swap while booting and the only thing the /boot partition for is the kernel which is loaded only in the earliest stage of the boot. This layout should have no effect on boot time.
voidmain:
quote:Originally posted by DC:
I have 512MB physical RAM and 50-or-so MB swap (on the main 40 GB drive, the other one is less used but older/slower).
I always thought swap wasn't used in Linux unless it's needed, so it wouldn't slow stuff down, which explains that swap usage tends to stay low (almost always 0, rises to ~10MB during heavy disk usage like copying 5GB partitions).
Windows is different - it always seemed to use at least 150 swap.
--- End quote ---
I believe you have less swap than what you should have. I think you want at least 128MB but very possible 512MB of swap as the minimum. And swap space is there to help speed things up, not slow them down. Without swap space, RAM can not be used for efficient caching.
I also have 512MB of RAM and 512MB of swap. At this second I am showing ~65MB of RAM free, and ~56MB of swap used. I certainly don't have 450MB of program code running. A lot of my RAM is being used for caching which makes things faster. Some memory has been paged out to swap because it isn't being used so there is more RAM available for cache. At least that's the way I understand how the swap works. Add more swap and let your system do it's magic.
LAGMAN:
I got 512MB of ram. and a 256MB swap, I never have seen the swap touched. most people will call me dumb for not doing the "unwritten swap drive rule." but hell, thats 768MB more space on my 30GIG I can put porn on! YAY!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version