[Scottish] Swap partitions -- do modern boxen really need them? Discuss

Kyle Gordon scottish at mailman.lug.org.uk
Wed Jul 16 12:59:00 2003

On Wednesday 16 July 2003 12:20, Kevin McDermott wrote:
> * Kyle Gordon <kyle@lodge.glasgownet.com> [Jul 16. 2003 12:15]:
> > On a slightly related note, with the new 2.6 kernel you now get suspend
> > to swap. This can be slightly problematic if you have less swap than (in
> > use) RAM
> >
> > I see your point though, 2xRAM swap does seem slightly excessive, and is
> > probably useless, unless you have a laptop that you wish to use swsusp
> > on. Even then you'd probably only need a little bit more swap than you
> > have RAM.
> Disk is cheap, RAM isn't as cheap, even with 4Gb of RAM you only need 8Gb
> of SWAP space (at 2xSwap), given that 80Gb and 120Gb disks are becoming the
> norm, 8Gb of disk space doesn't seem that bad...
> Perhaps 8Gb is excessive, but, it's a tried and tested rule-of-thumb.
> > Talking of which... is there anyway to assign X amount of swap, but only
> > let the kernel use a specific amount?
> To what end?
> If you're using swap on LVM, you can alter the swap-space at will (this is
> highly recommended on boxes where you think you're gonna boost the RAM).
I'd like to use swsusp to suspend my laptop to disk. However, with 256Mb RAM, 
and my affection for KDE, I regularly find myself eating into the 256Mb swap 
that I have. I might, in some instances, be using a total of say, 300Mb, so 
it attempts to save 300Mb into a 256 swapspace... I could resize my 
partitions to cope (lack of foresight - my fault anyway) and give it more 
swap, but how can I be sure that it doesn't use up more that space either?

I know this may sound strange, and I've probably got the wrong end of the 
stick when it comes to swap matters, so feel free to LART me.