Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:53:46 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> 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: <86393b8cp1.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <201208241013.48805.jhb@freebsd.org> (John Baldwin's message of "Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:13:48 -0400") References: <502831B7.1080309@freebsd.org> <201208240748.19737.jhb@freebsd.org> <866288laq0.fsf@ds4.des.no> <201208241013.48805.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> writes: > Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav <des@des.no> writes: > > The limit we had was insufficient for 8 GB of swap. > In absolute or practical terms? This whole thing started because I have a machine with 8 GB swap that ran out of swzone. > At this point i386 is going to be used on smaller systems > (e.g. netbooks, etc.), not servers that have lots of swap. I don't think it's unreasonable for an i386 box to be maxed out on RAM (4 GB) and have twice that amount of swap. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86393b8cp1.fsf>