swappiness=0 or add a 2nd SATA drive and put the swap file on there..?

binskipy2u · 2010-07-03 02:42:28

and make swappiness=10 , which is faster, no swap file.. (i have 4 gigs dualchannel ddr2 533mhz ram) and i have 2 1gig sticks in a computer I'm not using, that is also dual channel and the mobo with the 4 gigs, has 2 more dual channel slots for 6 gigs dual chanel ram..
is it faster to have 0 for swappiness w/6 gigs of ram (4 is plenty, but its just sitting there, why not, right?) or adding another SATA drive and putting the swap file (1,250mb) on the 2ndary drive?
jsut wondering, thanks

fukawi2 · 2010-07-03 03:24:04

Is there a problem you're trying to solve?

The money you would spend on a second hard drive would be better spent on more RAM if you're running out of RAM. Swap is slow and should be avoided at all costs IMHO.

binskipy2u · 2010-07-03 03:31:17

i won a computer in a forum contest a year ago.. but its an asus 1.9x2 64bit, nice case, i'm thinking of puting this gatewway mobo and having dual dvd burners, and dual hard drives.. and adding the2 gigs ram.. leaving the dual 1.9 on the asus (only has 2 ram slots, goes up to 4gigs total) while this gateway is a triple core 2.1 ghz, w/4 slots, 8gigs max.. just consolidating.. and moving to a roomier case with 2 120mm fans and a p/s thats 200watts more.. i would do it myself.. but ill pay a computer place 50bucks to do it all.. dont want to mess something up by accident and b e out of 2 computers..

jsut wondering regarding swap file on a "2nd physical drive vs no swap, all ram drive(which i have now, and its FAST )

thanks for responding

Spacenick · 2010-07-03 11:25:21

Why bother? The kernel will use all the RAM it can for good and not touch the swapfile unless there realy is a need to. So unless you are using more then you can there is no reason there should be any performance problem.
What are you doing anyway that sucks up so much RAM? By the way always remember RAM that's not used is the biggest waste a computer can have. And if Linux shows you it's using all you RAM always remember that the RAM used for cache and stuff will be freed in no time if it's needed for something else.
My best bet is put the swap wherever you want, or don't use swap at all, it doesn't matter much unless you are using really lots of RAM and want the software to run through even if it's using more then there is.
If you'd be killing it when it has eaten all the RAM anyway there is no sense in fast swap.

beroal · 2010-07-03 11:51:17

binskipy2u wrote:

and make swappiness=10 , which is faster, no swap file.. (i have 4 gigs dualchannel ddr2 533mhz ram) and i have 2 1gig sticks in a computer I'm not using, that is also dual channel and the mobo with the 4 gigs, has 2 more dual channel slots for 6 gigs dual chanel ram..
is it faster to have 0 for swappiness w/6 gigs of ram (4 is plenty, but its just sitting there, why not, right?) or adding another SATA drive and putting the swap file (1,250mb) on the 2ndary drive?
jsut wondering, thanks

If you do not want to use a swap partition, just do not mount one. You do not need to touch "swappiness" and it may work not as you expected. Warning: without swap you will experience OS voluntarily killing processes when RAM is exhausted. With swap you are usually warned about this by HDD working like crazy. So swap is a safety net. Wether RAM is faster than RAM+swap is a tough question. I am not aware of any measurements showing that.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-07-03 02:42:28

swappiness=0 or add a 2nd SATA drive and put the swap file on there..?

#2 2010-07-03 03:24:04

Re: swappiness=0 or add a 2nd SATA drive and put the swap file on there..?

#3 2010-07-03 03:31:17

Re: swappiness=0 or add a 2nd SATA drive and put the swap file on there..?

#4 2010-07-03 11:25:21

Re: swappiness=0 or add a 2nd SATA drive and put the swap file on there..?

#5 2010-07-03 11:51:17

Re: swappiness=0 or add a 2nd SATA drive and put the swap file on there..?

Board footer