Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition limit

[R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl (Rogier Wolff)]

David Lang wrote:
> at the low end useing a bit of disk for swap doesn't hurt, I ran into a
> case a couple years ago on AIX systems. we buy them with 2G ram so that we
> don't need to swap, but discovered (the hard way) that we also needed to
> allocate 4G of disk space for those boxes (allocating less then 2G meant
> that we couldn't use the 2G of RAM). This meant that we had to go out and
> buy 2nd hard drives for every machine, just to put the swap files on.
> 
> now disks are larger today so it's not as much of an issue, but even with
> modern 9-18G drives you can end up eating up 20% or more on a large
> machine, this starts to be significant. you can try to say that any box
> with that much ram must have lots of disk as well, and most of the time
> you will be right, but not all the time. there are cases (webservers for
> example) where the machines will be built with lots of RAM and CPU and
> little disk becouse they get all their content and put all their logs
> elsewhere on the network. in fact with the advances in flash size and the
> desire to create high performance clusters, I would not be surprised to
> see web node machines produced with no hard drives. it means one less
> thing that can break on the system (think a rack of transmeta powered
> boxes with no moving parts in the rack except possibly fans)

On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl wrote:

> > I've ALWAYS said that it's a rule-of-thumb. This means that if you
> > have a good argument to do it differently, you should surely do so!

Roger. 


-- 
** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
* There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. 
* There are also old, bald pilots.