Le 14/02/2019 à 03:14, Curt Howland a écrit :
I also put in ramdisk options for /tmp in /etc/fstab
You mean tmpfs, not ramdisk. Nobody sane would prefer ramdisk over tmpfs
for /tmp.
On 2/13/19 1:28 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:14:36PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
A swap partition is faster than a swap file.
Has something changed in this regard since kernel version 2.6 then?
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0507.0/1690.html
I do not follo
On 2/13/19 1:23 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:
David Christensen wrote:
On 2/13/19 6:11 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
If you want maximum SSD longevity, increase the amount of space that
the SSD can use for remapping by never writing to some amount of
space. Easiest is to not fill the disk with partitions -- le
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
One of the things I do with an SSD is turn down "swappiness" to a
minimum.
In /etc/sysctl.d/custom.conf
I put the following lines:
vm.swappiness = 0
vm.vfs_cache_pressure = 40
vm.dirty_background_ratio = 10
vm.dirty_ratio = 40
There are also a
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 04:23:56PM -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
> "Over-provisioning often takes away from user capacity, either
> temporarily or permanently, but it gives back reduced write
> amplification, increased endurance, and increased performance."
>
> Increased endurance is increased
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:14:36PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
AFAIK over-provisioning has no effect on longevity -- longevity is
proportional to total number of cells times rated erase/ write cycles
per cell divided by write throughput.
In the absence of trim, restricting the logical capac
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:14:36PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> A swap partition is faster than a swap file.
Has something changed in this regard since kernel version 2.6 then?
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0507.0/1690.html
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-no
David Christensen wrote:
> On 2/13/19 6:11 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > If you want maximum SSD longevity, increase the amount of space that
> > the SSD can use for remapping by never writing to some amount of
> > space. Easiest is to not fill the disk with partitions -- leave 5-10%
> > empty.
>
> A
On 2/13/19 5:41 AM, deb wrote:
Again -- fussing with a full (not from a live .iso) 9.7 install; the
Debian GUI installer is suggesting a Swap partition on a Kingston
SSD.
#1 Given that it's not great to pound the same area of a SSD with
writes; is it indeed still best practice to go with a swap
Thank you.
On 2/13/2019 9:11 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
deb wrote:
On 2/13/2019 8:46 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:41:33AM -0500, deb wrote:
#1 Given that it's not great to pound the same area of a SSD with
writes; is it indeed still best practice to go with a swap partition
deb wrote:
>
> On 2/13/2019 8:46 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:41:33AM -0500, deb wrote:
> > > #1 Given that it's not great to pound the same area of a SSD with
> > > writes; is it indeed still best practice to go with a swap partition
> > > on a SSD rather than a swap F
On 2/13/2019 8:46 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:41:33AM -0500, deb wrote:
#1 Given that it's not great to pound the same area of a SSD with
writes; is it indeed still best practice to go with a swap partition
on a SSD rather than a swap FILE?
That's not a thing: the SS
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:41:33AM -0500, deb wrote:
#1 Given that it's not great to pound the same area of a SSD with
writes; is it indeed still best practice to go with a swap partition
on a SSD rather than a swap FILE?
That's not a thing: the SSD will balance writes physically across the
d
On Friday 04 May 2012 06:16:52 Bret Busby wrote:
> It could simply be malicious web sites.
>
> I have just tried (repeatedly) to access whitepages.com.au, using
> konqueror (one of the web browsers that I have kept allowing
> Javascript), and, each time that I try to use the web site, it just
> fre
On Thu, 03 May 2012 03:48:59 -0400 (EDT), Claudius Hubig wrote:
>
> Stephen Powell wrote:
>> It is my understanding that,
>> assuming suspend/resume is supported, your swap partition
>> should be AT LEAST as large as TWICE the amount of RAM.
>> Suspend/resume will consume a RAM's worth right out
On 04/05/12 16:34, Bret Busby wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>
>>
>> On 04/05/12 15:16, Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>> Works just as well in iceweasel 12.0.1 with NoScript fully enabled.
>> Ditto Konqueror 4.4.5
>>
>
> Hmm.
>
> It does work in iceweasel 3.5.16, with Javascript di
On Fri, 4 May 2012, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 04/05/12 15:16, Bret Busby wrote:
I have just tried (repeatedly) to access whitepages.com.au, using
konqueror (one of the web browsers that I have kept allowing
Javascript), and, each time that I try to use the web site, it just
freezes konquero
On 04/05/12 15:30, Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>
> And, Iceweasel (and it may have happened with the iceape browser; I am
> not sure - have not used it for a couple of weeks, now, I think) has a
> habit of leaving fragments of dialogue boxes on top of everything else
> on the desktop, hiding parts of
On 04/05/12 15:16, Bret Busby wrote:
>
> I have just tried (repeatedly) to access whitepages.com.au, using
> konqueror (one of the web browsers that I have kept allowing
> Javascript), and, each time that I try to use the web site, it just
> freezes konqueror, requiring me to use the kill switc
On Fri, 4 May 2012, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 04/05/12 14:23, Bret Busby wrote:
Perhaps, on installation, the creation of a file to store the original
information about the installation (iso image source, full version
number and date of version, etc), that could be retrieved any time
On Fri, 4 May 2012, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 04/05/12 04:54, Bret Busby wrote:
Out of interest, with you saying that swapping is not mandatory,
from memory, about 20-odd years ago, when I started learning
(formally) about operating systems, we were told that UNIX has a
memory requirement
On Fri, 4 May 2012, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Hm, I've got 4 GB RAM and two swaps, 2.17GiB and 2.43GiB, one on each
HDD I'm using.
I'm doing resource-intensive work with my machine.
4 GB RAM are enough for my needs and I never noticed that a swap was
touched.
For my kind of usage Linux (Debian and se
On 04/05/12 14:23, Bret Busby wrote:
> If some utility
> existed that would display the source of an iso image, and the full
> version number of the source iso image, it would be good.
# mount -o loop debian-testing-i386-netinst.iso /mnt
# cat /mnt/.disk/info
Debian GNU/Linux testing "Wheezy" -
On 04/05/12 02:28, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 01:36 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
While this computer has 8GB of RAM, which is far greater than the total
hard drive capacities of most hard drives from twenty years ago
I can't resist ... in the 80s and 90s we burned EPROMS with much
Rick Thomas wrote:
> Another use for a large swap partition is if you want to put /tmp
> into tmpfs.
Yes. The new trend for tmpfs /tmp partitions is going to require a
lot of thinking and rethinking for how much swap is required.
Or also swap is useful if you have an enterprise server and have
d
On Fri, 4 May 2012, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about 40GB set up, as
is shown by gparted.
Did you chose this large swap or was it done automatically? My
installs / + /home have around 20 or 30 GB only. Of cause, for audio
productions I have separated
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 01:36 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > While this computer has 8GB of RAM, which is far greater than the total
> > hard drive capacities of most hard drives from twenty years ago
I can't resist ... in the 80s and 90s we burned EPROMS with much less
capacity than an USB stick h
On 04/05/12 04:54, Bret Busby wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>
>>
>> On 02/05/12 17:48, Bret Busby wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Why is this so?
>>
>> JSM is that you? :-)
>>
>
> Nope
>
> :)
>
> Is he still around?
No (only in spirit). His son is though - and does excelle
On 04/05/12 00:34, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:48:59AM +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
>> Hello Stephen,
>>
>> Stephen Powell wrote:
>>> It is my understanding that,
>>> assuming suspend/resume is supported, your swap partition
>>> should be AT LEAST as large as TWICE the amount
> While this computer has 8GB of RAM, which is far greater than the total
> hard drive capacities of most hard drives from twenty years ago
40MB (mega bytes!) SCSI drive for my Atari 520 ST here and 4MB RAM (I'm
a tinkerer ;) and it's not only running the Atari TOS, there's a 80286
hardware emul
Hm, I've got 4 GB RAM and two swaps, 2.17GiB and 2.43GiB, one on each
HDD I'm using.
I'm doing resource-intensive work with my machine.
4 GB RAM are enough for my needs and I never noticed that a swap was
touched.
For my kind of usage Linux (Debian and several other distros) are able
to handle the
On Fri, 4 May 2012 02:40:16 +0800 (WST), Bret Busby wrote:
free:
"
:~# free
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem: 80599647746808 313156 0 54708
1352976
-/+ buffers/cache:63391241720840
Swap: 42860340 66296 42
On Thu, 3 May 2012, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 02/05/12 17:48, Bret Busby wrote:
Why is this so?
JSM is that you?
:-)
Nope
:)
Is he still around?
fact there is *no* swap "rule".
Swap is not "required". Enable it if you wish - but it's not mandatory,
and it's usefulness is deter
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 17:27:42
From: Andrei POPESCU
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Swap space not used
On Mi, 02 mai 12, 15:48:30, Bret Busby wrote:
Hello.
I am running Debian 6.
When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about
Hello Darac,
Darac Marjal wrote:
> If the swap space is available during normal usage, then it's entirely
> possible to have no space to suspend to.
Yes. However, this is rather unlikely when the computer is used as a
desktop/laptop, don’t you think? The only times when I actually used
my swap s
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:48:59AM +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
> Hello Stephen,
>
> Stephen Powell wrote:
> > It is my understanding that,
> > assuming suspend/resume is supported, your swap partition
> > should be AT LEAST as large as TWICE the amount of RAM.
> > Suspend/resume will consume a R
Hello Stephen,
Stephen Powell wrote:
> It is my understanding that,
> assuming suspend/resume is supported, your swap partition
> should be AT LEAST as large as TWICE the amount of RAM.
> Suspend/resume will consume a RAM's worth right out of the
> starting gate. The rest is then available for r
On Wed, 02 May 2012 07:12:31 -0400 (EDT), Sian Mountbatten wrote:
> ...
> As a rule, your swap partition should be the same size as your RAM.
> ...
It is my understanding that,
assuming suspend/resume is supported, your swap partition
should be AT LEAST as large as TWICE the amount of RAM.
Suspend
On 02/05/12 17:48, Bret Busby wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I am running Debian 6.
>
> When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about 40GB set up, as is
> shown by gparted.
>
> But, for some strnge reason, Debian 6will not use the swap space,
> even
> though gparted shows it to be "Active".
I don
Another use for a large swap partition is if you want to put /tmp into
tmpfs.
Whether doing so is a "good thing(TM)" is a religious debate that I
don't want to stir up here. But there are people who do it, and for
them a large swap partition can be useful.
Rick
PS: We haven't heard back
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Johan Grönqvist
wrote:
> 2012-05-02 13:12, Sian Mountbatten skrev:
>
> Your swap partition is, very likely, too large. As a rule, your swap
>> partition should be the same size as your RAM. Do you have 40GB RAM?
>>
>
> Linux can handle well above 40 GB of swap. I w
2012-05-02 13:12, Sian Mountbatten skrev:
Your swap partition is, very likely, too large. As a rule, your swap
partition should be the same size as your RAM. Do you have 40GB RAM?
Linux can handle well above 40 GB of swap. I would be surprised if "swap
partition too large" was the reason. My
Hello Lisi,
Lisi wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 May 2012 12:12:31 Sian Mountbatten wrote:
> > As a rule, your swap
> > partition should be the same size as your RAM.
>
> We used to be taught it should be twice as big as your RAM - but even that
> wouldn't get you to 40GB!! And, of course, that was i
On Wednesday 02 May 2012 12:12:31 Sian Mountbatten wrote:
> As a rule, your swap
> partition should be the same size as your RAM.
We used to be taught it should be twice as big as your RAM - but even that
wouldn't get you to 40GB!! And, of course, that was in the days when RAM was
tiny by today
On 02/05/12 09:00, Bret Busby wrote:
Hello.
I am running Debian 6.
When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about 40GB set up, as is
shown by gparted.
But, for some strnge reason, Debian 6will not use the swap space, even
though gparted shows it to be "Active".
Instead of Debian 6 using
On Mi, 02 mai 12, 15:48:30, Bret Busby wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I am running Debian 6.
>
> When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about 40GB set up, as
> is shown by gparted.
four zero Gigabytes? My / + /home are only 27GB :)
> But, for some strnge reason, Debian 6will not use the swap spac
On Wed, 2 May 2012 15:48:30 +0800 (WST)
Bret Busby wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I am running Debian 6.
>
> When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about 40GB set up, as is
> shown by gparted.
>
> But, for some strnge reason, Debian 6will not use the swap space, even
> though gparted shows it t
Hi,
In article ,
Bret Busby wrote:
> When I installed it, I had a swap partition of about 40GB set up, as is
> shown by gparted.
>
> But, for some strnge reason, Debian 6will not use the swap space, even
> though gparted shows it to be "Active".
>
> Instead of Debian 6 using the swap[
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 06:51:08AM -0400, Mag Gam wrote:
> Typically, we create a partition to capture a kernel dump when the system
> crashes. Therefore, a system with 16GB of RAM will have a partition with
> 16GB.
>
> How would I scale a system with 64 or 128GB of memory? Any thoughts?
>
Bigge
"Mag Gam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Typically, we create a partition to capture a kernel dump when the system
> crashes. Therefore, a system with 16GB of RAM will have a partition with
> 16GB.
> How would I scale a system with 64 or 128GB of memory? Any thoughts?
As far as I understand, thou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/11/08 05:51, Mag Gam wrote:
> Typically, we create a partition to capture a kernel dump when the
> system crashes.
How often does that happen?
> Therefore, a system with 16GB of RAM will have a
> partition with 16GB.
>
> How wo
on Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 04:33:45AM -0800, Karsten M. Self
(kmself@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> on Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 07:21:20AM +, Alexis Huxley ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > On 2004-10-21, Gilbert, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Think about it, if you want to dramatically improve the
On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 04:33 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 07:21:20AM +, Alexis Huxley ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > On 2004-10-21, Gilbert, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
[snip]
> Oh, and why 2-3x RAM to start? Because you can add memory to a system
> pret
on Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 07:21:20AM +, Alexis Huxley ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On 2004-10-21, Gilbert, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > taken for rote. I was told back when I first started working with Unix that
> > the swap space needed to be at least twice the size of physical mem
On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 21:42 +0100, Pigeon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 12:03:42AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > "Gilbert, Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
>
> Well, boards that can take 4G are common these days, but there's a
> limit of 2G on swap size (at least up to 2.4; don't k
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 12:03:42AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> "Gilbert, Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There is an issue that I do not fully understand that I have always kind of
> > taken for rote. I was told back when I first started working with Unix that
> > the swap space needed to
-Original Message-
From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Well, that used to be the rule of thumb for a Linux-specific problem
> with swap space. Today, you can run without swap without a problem.
> I keep a gig of swap on hand to avoid out of memory problems at all
> costs and h
On 2004-10-21, Gilbert, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> taken for rote. I was told back when I first started working with Unix that
> the swap space needed to be at least twice the size of physical memory in
> order to ensure a stable system.
I believe this was just a rule of thumb when memo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Johnno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have 131 meg of memory and a swap of about 100megs..
Ouch. You might see some performance gains from a bit more swap,
since you'll be able to swap more of what's not actively running out,
allowing for more file
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Gilbert, Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is an issue that I do not fully understand that I have always kind of
> taken for rote. I was told back when I first started working with Unix that
> the swap space needed to be at least twice the
I have 131 meg of memory and a swap of about 100megs..
The system is ran as a server..
- Original Message -
From: "Gilbert, Joseph"
> Hi all,
>
> There is an issue that I do not fully understand that I have always kind
of
> taken for rote. I was told back when I first started working
Joe writes:
> I was told back when I first started working with Unix that the swap
> space needed to be at least twice the size of physical memory in order to
> ensure a stable system.
> Is this truly the case?
Not any more.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
acts about this issue but I could just be
overcomplicating the issue in my head.
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Scarletdown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: swap space size
On Thursday 21 October 2004 03:55 pm, Gilber
On Thursday 21 October 2004 03:55 pm, Gilbert, Joseph wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There is an issue that I do not fully understand that I have always
> kind of taken for rote. I was told back when I first started working
> with Unix that the swap space needed to be at least twice the size of
> physical m
Lo, on Sunday, February 24, Charles Baker did write:
> I'm about to install sid, using unoffical iso's, on a
> machine w/ 384MB of RAM. Old rule of thumb was
> 2*RAM-SIZE = SWAP-SIZE . Do I really need 768MB of
> swap space?!?!?! Plus, since the install uses 2.2.20
> kernel, will it be able to han
On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 15:49, Jeff wrote:
> The swap size will depend on what you're using the system for.
> For a workstation/desktop type of system, I've always done 128MB
> swaps and when the RAM size goes above 128, I match the RAM and
> swap size.
Of course, this largely depends on what you ar
Another thing to think about is where to put them. If you have multiple
drives, you'll want swap on each drive to give the OS a better chance to
do paging where it's not already doing I/O.
--
http://www.eskimo.com/~xeno
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Physically I'm at: 5101 N. 45th St., Tacoma, WA, 98407-371
Charles Baker, 2002-Feb-24 13:26 -0800:
> I'm about to install sid, using unoffical iso's, on a
> machine w/ 384MB of RAM. Old rule of thumb was
> 2*RAM-SIZE = SWAP-SIZE . Do I really need 768MB of
> swap space?!?!?! Plus, since the install uses 2.2.20
> kernel, will it be able to handle a swap spa
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:26:30 -0800 (PST) Charles Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I'm about to install sid, using unoffical iso's, on a
> machine w/ 384MB of RAM. Old rule of thumb was
> 2*RAM-SIZE = SWAP-SIZE . Do I really need 768MB of
> swap space?!?!?! Plus, since the install uses 2.2.20
>
On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 01:05:49AM -0800, Denzil Kelly wrote:
>
> debian kernel: VM: do_try_to_free_pages failed for
> kswapd...
>
That is a known kernel bug that affected (IIRC) kernels 2.2.12-2.2.16
but is fixed in kernel 2.2.17 and later. 2.2.18 is current and you can
grab the sources from f
I think you are right nate. When I started with Linux a couple years
ago, the 2.0 series was current (like 2.0.36 or something). It was
then that I read in a how-to that even if you make a really big swap
partition, only 128MB would be used.
Last night I tried to confirm this with my current 2.
> Re: swap space and memory [ Denzil Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> debian kernel: VM: do_try_to_free_pages failed for
> kswapd...
>
i have the same proplem but only when login as a user. When i am root,
nothing happens.
As soon as I log in as a user, I hardly
Denzil Kelly wrote:
>
> Initially I installed a slink on this box, and at the
> time I had 64 MB of RAM however I was unable to make a
> swap partition of 128 MB. I later added another 64 MB
> of RAM. I tried to resize my /home partition but
> something went wrong and I wound up reformatting the
>
Initially I installed a slink on this box, and at the
time I had 64 MB of RAM however I was unable to make a
swap partition of 128 MB. I later added another 64 MB
of RAM. I tried to resize my /home partition but
something went wrong and I wound up reformatting the
hard drive, and installed storm, t
it is, look at 'dmesg' or look at the log when the system boots.
in my case i have 512MB memory
Memory: 517152k/524288k available (1256k kernel code, 412k reserved,
5424k data, 44k init)
the system tells you what the overhead is used for.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ free -m
total us
did you install this on debian 2.1? or anything using the 2.0 kernel?
from what i remember this was a kernel 2.0 limitation. 124MB
reported by the system is normal. 124*1024=126,976kB , add
some more for the space the kernel takes up when it loads into
memory and any memory used by modules when the
I have 64MB RAM and 256MB swap. When I run free it tells me I have
61MB RAM and 244MB swap. Interesting.
Also, I had read in a How-To that Linux wouldn't use more than 128MB
of swap in a single partition. Before I relayed that info, I though I
would test it (I had only recently expanded my swa
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Ken M. Mevand wrote:
> anyone knows what the message "Unable to find swap space
> signature" means during boot? my swap partition is 40Mb on hdd2.
It's actually generated by the 'swapon' command. A swap partition has to
be type 82 and it has to be prepared with 'mkswap'
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 10:49:17AM +0800, Ken M. Mevand wrote:
> hi,
> anyone knows what the message "Unable to find swap space signature"
> means during boot? my swap partition is 40Mb on hdd2.
Created a swap partition without running mkswap on it? See man mkswap.
--
/bin/sh ~/.signatur
Thanks to all who replied - problem solved. Such quick, informative and
friendly help is one of (the many) things I like about Debian.
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:19:14 -0800 (PST), aphro wrote:
> mkswap /dev/hda2
> swapon /dev/hda2
>
> add an entry in /etc/fstab for it type swap mountpoint none
mkswap /dev/hda2
swapon /dev/hda2
add an entry in /etc/fstab for it type swap mountpoint none
/dev/hda2 noneswapsw 0 0
nate
On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
photiu >Hello all.
photiu >I've just done a fresh install of slink and forgot to initialize the
swap
On Sun, 6 Feb 2000, Eric G . Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 02:55:33PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hello all.
> > I've just done a fresh install of slink and forgot to initialize the swap
> > partition I made (hda2)
> > Is there a way to initialize it? Or do I have to reinstall? h
On Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 02:55:33PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello all.
> I've just done a fresh install of slink and forgot to initialize the swap
> partition I made (hda2)
> Is there a way to initialize it? Or do I have to reinstall? hda is divided
> into / (hda1) and swap.
Add this to /
On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I asked earlier on this list about why memory is sucked up into buffers. I
> appreciate the answers and thank everyone who responded. Now I have a new
> question: why won't the kernel release the swap space that it apparently
> needed sometime earlier?
>
> I asked earlier on this list about why memory is sucked up into buffers. I
> appreciate the answers and thank everyone who responded. Now I have a new
> question: why won't the kernel release the swap space that it apparently
> needed sometime earlier? The kernel is 2.0.30
>
> Here's a snapsh
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Shaleh wrote:
> I agree that the 3x swap rule makes little sense on high end systems. A
> guru friend of mine explained it as "if the kernel needs to swap out
> your memory it might have to swap the whole thing so you should plan for
> that". He believes you should use 1.5x
>> I haven't had any problem with the 4 gig Barracuda I've been using
>> in my Linux box, except for getting bitten by the glibc/fsck bug. >
>>
>What bug is that? Just curious, as I'm running glibc on a 4G
>barracuda, and 2 2G Quantum Atlases. (With a large striped partition.)
>
if you have any pa
On 25 Jul 1997, Dale Martin wrote:
> Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I haven't had any problem with the 4 gig Barracuda I've been using in my
> > Linux box, except for getting bitten by the glibc/fsck bug.
>
> What bug is that? Just curious, as I'm running glibc on a 4G
> barracuda,
Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I haven't had any problem with the 4 gig Barracuda I've been using in my
> Linux box, except for getting bitten by the glibc/fsck bug.
What bug is that? Just curious, as I'm running glibc on a 4G
barracuda, and 2 2G Quantum Atlases. (With a large stripe
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Shaya Potter wrote:
:On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Jason Costomiris wrote:
:
:> [1] I've recently started using HP 2 gig Fast SCSI-2 disks. This box has
:> the C3325A in it. Runs nice and cool at 5400 RPM. Much better than the
:> Barracuda I used to have (before it melted in my case
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Jason Costomiris wrote:
> [1] I've recently started using HP 2 gig Fast SCSI-2 disks. This box has
> the C3325A in it. Runs nice and cool at 5400 RPM. Much better than the
> Barracuda I used to have (before it melted in my case with two huge
> fans).. You can fry eggs on t
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Shaleh wrote:
> even. I had posted about the Enlightemment WM -- is no one using it? I
> have seen very few responses. Any other nice WM's out there? My only
> (minimal) experience is with fvwm a year and a half ago on Slackware
> 2.0.
Re: the swap question, I've got 64 M
On Jul 23, Robert D. Hilliard wrote
> The rule of thumb of three times RAM has always seemed highly
> illogical to me. A machine with 8 mb probably needs much more than 24
> mb, while one with 97 mb probably doesn't need any.
IMHO, if you *need* swap space greater than two times your physica
Hi,
>>"Robert" == Robert D Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have 96M of RAM, I use swap space of about 3 times my RAM.
Robert> The rule of thumb of three times RAM has always seemed highly
Robert> illogical to me. A machine with 8 mb probably needs much more
Robert> than 24 mb, while on
Thanks for all the help -- this list has been great to me and many
others. In the weeks to come I hope to be able to give my own time to
helping others in this group. I need to get Debian running first ;-)
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECT
I agree that the 3x swap rule makes little sense on high end systems. A
guru friend of mine explained it as "if the kernel needs to swap out
your memory it might have to swap the whole thing so you should plan for
that". He believes you should use 1.5x your RAM on high end sytems ( >=
32 MB). I
> I have 96M of RAM, I use swap space of about 3 times my RAM.
The rule of thumb of three times RAM has always seemed highly
illogical to me. A machine with 8 mb probably needs much more than 24
mb, while one with 97 mb probably doesn't need any.
Bob
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LI
Just to pitch in :)
The web server/ftp server at CFNi has 128 MB RAM. I put a 240 MB
Quantum in the box for the sole purpose of serving as a swap device.
The server sees a good load now and then, but I've never seen it swap
unless I'm running vi. At least, that seems to make it swap ... it's
onl
Hi,
Peter is right. You can watch your memory utilization using
someting like xsysinfo or xmem or free, and see how close you get. I
have 96M of RAM, I use swap space of about 3 times my RAM. I have yet
to see swap touched (I usually have an emacs and an Xemacs process up
all the time)
Shaleh wrote:
> I have 64 mb of RAM, what is a good size for my swap partition??
How about whatever you need?
My old computer had 24 MB of RAM and I used to swap about 15 MB
(typically).
I now have 64 MB on a new computer and have not enebled a swap
partition (or file) yet. I'm waiting to put
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
