On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 09:45 -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: > Does anyone recall how Linux performs without swap? I recall having a > problem with this type of setup in 2.4 way back when, but I don't > remember the details. If this is a server, you probably have thrown > lots of RAM at it anyway. Having a swap partition probably isn't > necessary. It looks like Kernel Trap had an article on this one. [1]_ > So, in May of 2004, the best performance for your machine is achieved > with a swap. Is this still true today? I suppose it depends on your workload. 2.6 kernels are much better about not using swap just because its there. (Though notably a few years back there was a fun bug in the OOM killer when you ran without swap, where it would kick in and start killing things when you were only at 50% memory usage, that has been since fixed...) I have a system with 384mb RAM running FC4 that I use for MythTV and playing DVDs and videos with Xine. And sometimes MAME. It ran for months straight without ever touching swap, so I just disabled swap. Swapping absolutely kills MythTV anyway. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20060207/77e837e0/attachment.pgp