Originally, i wantded to wrtie "if we take Stefan seriously, then something like 2/3 of RAM size should be 99.99% enough; and you'll probably never see the 0.01% worst case in your lifetime".
* As a sidenote, what happens if we put hibernation swap on a fast external USB 3.0 pendrive device ... doesn't that mean the data is safe even if the laptop gets snatched ?
> That's right. I'm able to hibernate, suspend and run many applications (I
> didn't try things like creating a squashfs ) at the same time using 3.8 GB
> of swap and 4gb of RAM.
>
> I was thinking of using 6gb swap for my new installation. But now I think
> in the new installation in my new SSD, I will just use a 4gb max swap
> partition. What do you say ?
> On 06-Feb-2016 7:54 AM, "Tom Dial" <
tddial@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Thank you; I did not know that, and it makes for a significant swap size
> > reduction in nearly all cases of a desktop or laptop workstation.
> >
> > The other points, I think, are not much changed. For the case Jos
> > Collin presented initially, (and noting his mention in another branch of
> > 175 MB actually used) 2GB swap likely is quite enough.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > On 02/04/2016 03:41 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > >> option, swap is where the memory image is put, and it should be at least
> > >> as large as real memory.
> > >
> > > Actually no: when hibernating, the requirement is that the currently
> > > unused swap space (which should usually be pretty much the whole swap
> > > space), be large enough to contain a *compressed* form of a *part* of
> > > the RAM (the parts that can be skipped are those which would never be
> > > moved to swap anyway, such as the caches that hold a copy of data which
> > > is already available elsewhere on disk).
> > >
> > > So it doesn't need to be as large as RAM. In many cases, the amount of
> > > swap space used by hibernation less than 1/3 of RAM.
> > >
> > >
> > > Stefan
> > >
> > >
> >
> >