Re: to lvm or not lvm is my dillema
DJPfulio--- via Ale <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.user-groups.ale |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 1/3/26 19:13, Steve Litt via Ale wrote: >> No. If you increase physical RAM you often want to add SWAP >> devices. I disagree. Since around 2000, the old rules of 2-3x RAM for swap just don't apply if you want a responsive server. In the days of more than 4GB of RAM, swap use has drastically changed a) from "provide virtual memory" b) to "let the admin know when slowdowns are happening so steps can be taken". I try to run my servers without needing any swap, though the kernel setup prefers _some_ swap to enable performance features. For the last 2+ decades, I've never added more than 4GB swap to any system, including desktops. Only desktops that are hibernated could need more. For a long time, I ran servers with ZERO swap. I'd just size the RAM for the VM to be sufficient for the workload. This worked for almost a decade, but was probably a mistake. I don't recall when, but the kernel guys enable certain performance toggles only if there's some swap, so 500M is what I started adding to servers that really don't need any, but the kernel switches require. I still try to ensure workloads fit within the RAM only and turn down swappiness to minimal levels in the tuning. I'm assuming people can buy more RAM as needed for the workload. That's been my experience regardless of workload for multiple decades - both for servers and desktops. Laptops aren't desktops. They have a bunch of other issues, often which cannot be solved. Has swap changed again and I missed it? That's entirely possible. _______________________________________________ Ale mailing list [email protected] https://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo