Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:14:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:14:24 -0500 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:56685 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:14:18 -0500 Message-ID: <3AB12209.5C2BD495@sgi.com> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:11:53 -0800 From: LA Walsh Organization: Trust Technology, SGI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux Kernel mailing list Subject: Re: Is swap == 2 * RAM a permanent thing? In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org The not reclaiming swap space is flawed in more than once instance. Suppose my P1 and P2 have their swap reserved -- now both grow. P3 is idle but can't fit in swap. This is going to result in fragmentation no? How is this fragmentation less worse than just freeing swap. Ever since Ram sizes got to about 256M, I've tended toward using swap spaces about half my RAM size -- thinking of swap as an 'overflow' place that really shouldn't get used much if at all. As you mention, not reclaiming swap space, but having 'double-reservations' for previously swapped programs becomes a problem fast in this situation. Makes the swap much less flexible. -- L A Walsh | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI law@sgi.com | Voice: (650) 933-5338 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/