Re: On Memory
phn_at_icke-reklam.ipsec.nu
Date: 09/24/04
- Previous message: Maitaimaker: "On Memory"
- In reply to: Maitaimaker: "On Memory"
- Next in thread: Barry Margolin: "Re: On Memory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:03:47 +0000 (UTC)
Maitaimaker <maitaimaker@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, I don't care about where you were last thursday at 8:53PM. I'm talking
> about physical and virtual memory in our unix world. For quite some time
> you'd look at virtual memory to be somewhere in the neighborhood of twice
> physical. These days where physical memory can easily range into multi
> gigs, is that necessarily practical or even useful? Has anyone done any
> research as to what a new standard should be, or does the old one work
> find even still? Lastly, is there a practical upper limit to virtual
> memory? I'd imagine that at some point you hit diminishing returns, due to
> bus speed, seek times, etc. Am I thinking wrong on this? Enquiring minds
> want to know...thanks for your input.
As before, this depends on your usage.
Having swap substantially larger then physical memory will give you
headroom to swap out if needed. The opposit, where the system needs to
swap out a running process but has no swap may cause deadlocks where
a hard reset is needed.
And if you can afford 32GRam then i don't see an issue of not having 80Gdisk
available as swap.
The degenerate cases where kernel-coredumps are taken also needs swap >> Ram. If you
ever need this (and was to lazy to configure swap) you will regret it.
--
Peter Håkanson
IPSec Sverige ( At Gothenburg Riverside )
Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam out,
remove "icke-reklam" if you feel for mailing me. Thanx.
- Previous message: Maitaimaker: "On Memory"
- In reply to: Maitaimaker: "On Memory"
- Next in thread: Barry Margolin: "Re: On Memory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
