|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
... Its a rule of thumb. If you can afford it, dedicate a 10k SCSI to
swap! I have clients with SUN 6800's and above
(http://www.sun.com/servers/midrange/sunfire6800/) with whole
RAID arrays for swap (and that's AFTER maxing out the system
boards) ... My point was if you have no idea how much resources
your programs are going to consume, RAM x 2 is a good place to
start.
Once you know, sweeten or dilute to taste.
Myself personally, with SATA 160 GB disks retailing for 60 pounds,
(apx. 110 USD), is the amount of space allocated to your SWAP
really that much of a resource impact? You can RAID a few of these
things together and have 300,000 Mb available for use < 300 USD.
Justin
---
Sven Napolean Montessori wrote:
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:34:50 +0000
From: Justin Fanning <Justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
All the guys I know in IT swear by the rule of thumb, (min) swap size =
RAM x 2.
That is an ancient and out of date nobrainer rule. That rule was
created in the days of little RAM (i.e. 640k is enough for anyone) and
small harddrives of 5 to 10M.
You need as much effective RAM as your programs require, a serious
number crunching program can easily eat up 10 times the installed
RAM. On the other hand, most machines with 1G of RAM nowdays should
never swap, as commonly available programs use far less memory. There
are plenty of swapless systems happily running as corporate servers.
Put as much hispeed RAM into the system as is possible, far better
than buying a DVD writer or other rarely used overpriced hardware.
|