Re: OT (slightly) swap limits
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 09:42:03AM +1000, Alex Samad wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 05:16:56PM -0400, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
> > Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> >>
> >> I've run machines with 1Gig or more RAM with NO SWAP. I've also run
> >> machines with 4Gig of RAM and 16Gig of swap (BIG datasets).
> >>
> >> Pat
> >>
> > Well,
> >
> > I tend to agree with you, however, I am being sucked dry of my Linux
> > knowledge (the purpose of the interview, find the point of breakdown to
> > determine the extent of the knowledge/skill). And much to my surprise I
> > just found this:
> >
> > "At a bare minimum, you need an appropriately-sized root partition, and
> > a swap partition equal to twice the amount of RAM"
> >
> > page 59, from a questionable source: Installation Guide of RHEL5.
>
> interestingly RHEL4 at 2.6 kernel distro still also made swap files of
> 2G max and used multiples of that. Since 2.6 this hasn't been
> necessary.
>
> Just because RHEL does it that way doesn't make it right
>
> Patrick I believe has the better approach - what are you going to use
> the box for and what sort of response do you want, although I have to
> diss agree on the need for large swap space for a database, DB are
> engineered to use all the space that are told to get hold of and have
> their own caching. Why interfere with it by pretending you have more
> memory than you do. You could end up hitting swap because the DB cache
> has grown.
>
I just want to clarify. I said there were big datasets, not necessarily
a database application.
Pat
--
Patrick Ouellette pat@flying-gecko.net
ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net Amateur Radio: NE4PO
"Crank the amp to 11, this needs more cowbell - and a llama wouldn't hurt either"
"Your arguments are an odd mix of overly optimistic on one side and overly
pessimistic on the other"
Reply to: