From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265322AbUEZGi0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2004 02:38:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265323AbUEZGi0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2004 02:38:26 -0400 Received: from mta9.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.199]:52172 "EHLO mta9.adelphia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265322AbUEZGiZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2004 02:38:25 -0400 Message-ID: <40B43B5F.8070208@nodivisions.com> Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 02:38:23 -0400 From: Anthony DiSante Reply-To: orders@nodivisions.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: why swap at all? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org As a general question about ram/swap and relating to some of the issues in this thread: ~500 megs cached yet 2.6.5 goes into swap hell Consider this: I have a desktop system with 256MB ram, so I make a 256MB swap partition. So I have 512MB "memory" and if some process wants more, too bad, there is no more. Now I buy another 256MB of ram, so I have 512MB of real memory. Why not just disable my swap completely now? I won't have increased my memory's size at all, but won't I have increased its performance lots? Or, to make it more appealing, say I initially had 512MB ram and now I have 1GB. Wouldn't I much rather not use swap at all anymore, in this case, on my desktop? -Anthony http://nodivisions.com/