On 03/25/2004 01:50 PM, John Thompson wrote:
Is it still also true, though, that swap should at a minimum = RAM (this is knowledge that dates back to early versions of SCO, which was weird anyway, I know)? If so, then having more swap than RAM may be worthwhile anyway, because you probably have plenty of disk space, and you might add RAM later (and you won't have to repartition at that point if you have extra swap).Craig Thomas wrote:
I have 256MB ram and a 502MB swap, and want to increase to 384MB
ram, [i know, i know it's an old machine]. I've read in the RH
manual and else where that double the amount of ram is "right". If
I want more swap but don't have any unpartitioned space left, what
are my options? (I do, however, have lots of free space on my
drive).
The advice that swap=2(RAM) dates from the time when RAM was expensive and few user machines had more than 64MB.
These days most people have plenty of RAM and thus require less swap space. I have 384MB RAM and a 256MB swap partition that is seldom more than 25% used.
I realize it's also a lot easier to repartition these days, too. But I still like to avoid it.
Can you have too much swap? (Disk space issues aside). If I have 512 Mb of RAM, and set up a 1Gb swap partition, did I make a mistake?
