Re: Query about existence of way to free up unnecessary RAM usage
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 09/12/2014 at 12:25 PM, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 12/09/2014, The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> On 09/10/2014 at 04:00 AM, Bret Busby wrote:
>>> I had understood the rule to be that swap space size should be
>>> at least double the size of the RAM.
>>
>> The rule (more "guideline") as I learned it is that swap
>> capacity should be at *most* double the size of RAM.
>>
>> On systems with 8GB of RAM or more, I usually try to aim for
>> about equal to the size of RAM. On systems with less, I go
>> higher, to be sufficiently sure I won't OOM with normal use of
>> the system.
>>
>> On my current system, with 24GB of RAM, the swap partition is
>> (according to lvdisplay) 22.75GB.
>>
>>> When the system was originally installed, the RAM was (I
>>> think) 8GB.
>>>
>>> If the double the size of the RAM, is still applicable, then
>>> 40GB should be okay.
>>>
>>> But, the question is, does the system say "Ooh that is too
>>> much for me - I can not cope - I will not venture out into
>>> that"?
>>>
>>> Does Debian Linux have a swap size limit, beyond which,
>>> swapping is disabled, or, choked?
>>
>> No.
>
> Okay.
>
> So, whether or not the swap partition is bigger than needed,
> should not influence the inability of the system, to use the swap
> partition, and, thence, whether or not the swap partition is too
> big, has no bearing on the problem.
>
> Correct?
Sounds right to me.
Unless I'm missing a twist somewhere, the only effects of having a
too-big swap partition should be:
* Wasted disk space, which could otherwise be used for other purposes.
* Inordinately large likelihood that the system will at some point swap
important processes out, thereby slowing down normal system operation,
because it thinks it needs to keep some huge static data in active RAM.
It certainly shouldn't affect whether or not, or at what points, the
system actually makes use of the available swap. That logic is handled
entirely in the kernel AFAIK, although the last discussion I read on how
the kernel handles it was a long time ago - I think 2009 or maybe 2010.
- --
The Wanderer
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=+gjR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: