Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?
On Sat 08 Jan 2022 at 14:23:43 (-0500), Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
> On 1/8/22, Georgi Naplatanov <gosho@oles.biz> wrote:
> > On 1/8/22 18:54, John Conover wrote:
> >>
> >> I just installed Bullseye, using default "use entire disk" as the HD
> >> configuration from the Graphical Install option on a Live USB SD.
> >>
> >> The swap partition size installed on the HD is 1 GB.
> >>
> >> Buster, etc., used to be about the size of memory, (8 GB in my case,)
> >> for the swap partition size.
> >>
> >> Is there a reason for such small default swap partition size on a 1 TB
> >> HD in Bullseye that I don't know about?
> >
> > nowadays computers have a lot of RAM and some people (including me)
> > don't create swap partition or swap file at all. In case of SSD (Solid
> > State Disk) you can look at this wiki [1]
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/SSDOptimization
>
> Saw the two mentions of having no swap and decided to chime in that I
> DO use swap, and so do my laptops accordinly. On a blessed day, I have
> 8GB ram. To the good or the bad of this particular User CHOICE, I try
> to remember to figure in 9 to 13 GB swap for my installations.
I don't use hibernation on my laptop, but only sleep. It has 16GB RAM,
and 16GB swap would remove 33% of its overprovisioning to no purpose.
I have a tower with 14GB of RAM and that has ½GB swap which has never
been used, except when I borrowed it for /boot when trying out a fully
encrypted system.
> "free -m" just now shocked me by saying this HP is only using 89mb of
> swap. Genuine shock. I'm used to that number being more like 6GB of
> swap in use. I'm impressed because this session has been up about six
> hours and has headed into hibernation umpteen number of times the
> entire time.
I would have expected swap usage to drop dramatically when it
hibernates because you've got to have room for what's in memory,
compressed I grant you. Won't it drop a load of RAM caches that
it was holding onto?
> Thank you, Developers! I agree that things swapping in and out
> painfully clog the system. Currently running up-to-date Bookworm, by
> the way.
True, but the alternative is running out of memory, and the OOM killer.
Obviously I don't know what you run that clogs the system. Most of my
machines have much less RAM than the two mentioned, though they get
less memory-intensive use nowadays. Maybe the difference is that
I don't install any DEs here.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: