Quote from Roger Luethi <rl@xxxxxxxxxxx>:No. Something will be terminated, not necessarily the "evil"
On Wed, 26 May 2004 02:38:23 -0400, Anthony DiSante wrote:
Now I buy another 256MB of ram, so I have 512MB of real memory. Why not just disable my swap completely now? I won't have increased my memory's size at all, but won't I have increased its performance lots?Swap serves another (often underrated) purpose: Graceful degradation.
Or, to make it more appealing, say I initially had 512MB ram and now I have 1GB. Wouldn't I much rather not use swap at all anymore, in this case, on my desktop?
If you have a reasonably amount of swap space mounted, you will know
you are running out of RAM because your system will become noticeably
slower. If you have no swap whatsoever, your first warning will quite
possibly be an application OOM killed or losing data due to a failed
Think of the slowness of swap as a _feature_.
There is a very negative side to this approach as well, especially if users
allocate excessive swap space.
A run-away process on a server with too much swap can cause it to grind to
almost a complete halt, and become almost compltely unresponsive to remote
If the total amount of storage is just enough for the tasks the server is
expected to deal with, then a run-away process will likely be terminated
quickly stopping it from causing the machine to grind to a halt.
If, on the other hand, there is excessive storage, it can continue runningWell, the process (or processes) can consume lots of cpu time
for a long time, often consuming a lot of CPU.
When the excess storage is physical RAM, this might not be particularly
disasterous, but if it's swap space, it's much more likely to cause a serious
drop in performance.
For a desktop system, it might not be a big deal, but when it's an ISP's serverDefinitely use ulimit on such a machine.
in a remote data centre, it can create a lot of unnecessary work.