On Sun 16 Jun 2019 at 14:17:21 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
> > It's rather easy to work around this problem in one of two ways (at least):
>
> Ways on order of {# users}**N { N < world_population} ;/
Eh?
He's claiming that his needs are the same as the rest of humanity to the n-th power.
....
> > I suspect
> > you won't even need to bother, because you'll be overwriting it shortly.
> > Does top show much use of swap anyway?)
>
> Not a parameter of my experiment's protocol.
I don't care. My point is that any reasonably endowed modern PC is
unlikely to do any swapping during your "installation/result
experiment" (whatever terminology you want to call it) as they have
so much memory. My old 500MB desktop doesn't, nor did its 384MB
predecessor (used from potato through squeeze).
> As I do not "know" how much swap space I require, I provide swap space
> based on conservative estimates of _typical_ requirements. That
> logically leads to my preference for a SINGLE large swap vs multiple
> small swap areas. *YMMV* !!!
I'll pass David on the left here ;-)
Knoppix proved years ago that you can run the whole damn thing out of RAM back when 512K was big.
In datacenters in recent years, if a server is swapping, a problem ticket is opened and alarm raised. Just because
the OS can handle it easily, nevertheless it's still a negative indicator. I just took possession of a free used Dell
PowerEdge R610 for home, retiring after 5 years hard time in chilled rooms.
It has 96GB RAM. I could run NASA out of that much RAM ;-)
Cheers,
David.