From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 06:08:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 06:08:24 -0400 Received: from www.teaparty.net ([216.235.253.180]:6406 "EHLO www.teaparty.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 06:08:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:08:10 +0100 (BST) From: Vivek Dasmohapatra To: "Dr S.M. Huen" cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Break 2.4 VM in five easy steps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Dr S.M. Huen wrote: > On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote: > > > > > For large memory boxes, this is ridiculous. Should I have 8GB of swap? > > > > Do I understand you correctly? > ECC grade SDRAM for your 8GB server costs Ł335 per GB as 512MB sticks even > at today's silly prices (Crucial). Ultra160 SCSI costs Ł8.93/GB as 73GB > drives. Not the point. It is an absolute pig to have to allocate extra swap just because extra memory was added. You might not have a bay free. You might not have the space knocking around to allocate as swap. It's not about the money, it's about adaptability. 2.2 was perfectly happy before, why this giant leap backwards? If I quadruple the memory in my laptop to 512Mb, do I have to carve up my partitions just to get an extra 768Mb of swap? Or must I turn off swap completely? What if you are working on a device where everything is at a premium, both permamanent storage and memory, but you do have a little to spare as swap? It just seems like an overly onerous restriction. -- The time for action is past! Now is the time for senseless bickering.