<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/28/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Luke-Jr</b> <<a href="mailto:luke@dashjr.org">luke@dashjr.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Thursday 28 June 2007 13:01, Jon Pruente wrote:<br>> Nope. Swap is not needed. It can help, but I've run systems with<br>> 512MB-1GB of RAM with no swap, with no issues. It wasn't long ago that<br>> most systems had 256MB of swap+RAM total. Having actual RAM is better
<br>> than swap. Swap is there to make up for not having enough physical<br>> RAM. RAM is cheap nowadays, so the need for swap is greatly reduced.<br><br>Not quite. No matter how much RAM you have, swap is still a good idea (though
<br>of course not technically required). Some times it makes more sense for Linux<br>to swap out a program so it has more RAM to cache files in. If you have no<br>swap, it can't do that.</blockquote><div><br>Ok, in the real world then - what is the default mode in a system having the whole 8 Gigs of memory on board? Is the "swap" then truly no longer a needful concept, or does it become a virtual swap to a soft set memory area?
<br><br>Oren Beck<br><br>"8Gb of Ram per computer in the office? Can we then use 100 computers to spatiallydispersed hold in RAM a 500 Gb hard drive's content =or the reverse-one HD to load 100 computers with a project running totally as ramdisk at 0300- to 0700?"
<br></div><br></div><br>