Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:13:48 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: "Dag-Erling =?utf-8?q?Sm=C3=B8rgrav?=" <des@des.no> Cc: alc@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Time to bump default VM_SWZONE_SIZE_MAX? Message-ID: <201208241013.48805.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <866288laq0.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <502831B7.1080309@freebsd.org> <201208240748.19737.jhb@freebsd.org> <866288laq0.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, August 24, 2012 8:45:43 am Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav wrote: > John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> writes: > > Note that on i386 you can't get more than 4GB of RAM without PAE, and i= f you > > have any modern x86 box with > 4GB of RAM, you are most likely running = amd64 > > on it, not i386. I think i386 would be fine to just keep the limit it = had. >=20 > The limit we had was insufficient for 8 GB of swap. In absolute or practical terms? Not all swap blocks are fully utilized. At Y! the install script we used would compute the maximum theoretical swap zo= ne needed and then cut it in half, and this worked quite well. Also, keep in = mind, this is for i386, not amd64. At this point i386 is going to be used on sma= ller systems (e.g. netbooks, etc.), not servers that have lots of swap. =2D-=20 John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201208241013.48805.jhb>