Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:27:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:27:00 -0500 Received: from c0mailgw.prontomail.com ([216.163.180.10]:9126 "EHLO c0mailgw02.prontomail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:26:50 -0500 Message-ID: <3BFD2709.31A1A85E@starband.net> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:25:45 -0500 From: war X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James A Sutherland CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Swap vs No Swap. In-Reply-To: <3BFC5A9B.915B77DF@starband.net> 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 Why have SWAP if you don't need it - answer that.? James A Sutherland wrote: > On Thursday 22 November 2001 1:53 am, war wrote: > > I do not understand something. > > > > How can having swap speed ANYTHING up? > > By providing ADDITIONAL storage. Yes, it's slower than RAM - but it's faster > than not having the storage at all. > > > RAM = 1000MB/s. > > DISK = 10MB/s > > > > Ram is generally 1000x faster than a hard disk. > > > > No swap = fastest possible solution. > > BS. You don't use swap INSTEAD of RAM, but AS WELL AS. Moving less frequently > used data to swap allows you to put more frequently used data in RAM, which > DOES speed things up. (At least, it does if the VM system works properly :P) > > By your logic, we should switch off the system RAM, too: after all, L2 cache > is much faster again, so using RAM can only slow things down? > > James. - 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/