Re: Pre-allocation of shared memory ...

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom, et al,
> 
> > > Given that swap space is cheap, and that killing random processes is
> > > obviously bad, it's not apparent to me why people think this is not
> > > a good approach --- at least for high-reliability servers.  And Linux
> > > would definitely like to think of itself as a server-grade OS.
> 
> Regrettably, few of the GUI installers for Linux (SuSE or Red Hat, for 
> example), include adequate swap space in their "suggested" disk formatting.  
> Some versions of some distributions do not create a swap partition at all; 
> others allocate only 130mb to this partition regardless of actual RAM.
> 
> So regardless of what they *should* be doing, there's thousands of Linux users 
> out there with too little or no swap on disk ...

Yes, I have seen that on BSD's too.  I am unsure if we need actual swap
backing store, or just sufficient RAM to allow fork expansion for dirty
pages.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073