From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:23:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:23:42 -0500 Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.243]:47892 "EHLO maynard.mail.mindspring.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:23:39 -0500 Subject: swap file vs swap partition From: Robert "M." Love To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailer: Evolution/0.9+cvs.2001.03.25.09.06 (Preview Release) Date: 25 Mar 2001 19:23:02 -0500 Message-Id: <985566184.20461.0.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org kernel 2.4.2-ac24. first, i have 256MB of RAM and a 128MB swap. i know the recommendation is RAM*2 for swap, but is that a *requirement* as well? i understand the active/inactive page debate and why *2 is needed (lets not argue that), but am i just wasting space with a 128MB swap? second, is there any performance issues with a swap partition vs a swap file. without resizing, i am stuck with the 128mb partition. thanks, -- Robert M. Love rml@ufl.edu rml@tech9.net