but its rarely gb at the same time. Thats the point. Its a dumping ground for stuff thats not used very often. meaning that you can have a bigger VFS cache, which reduces latency
> but its rarely gb at the same time. Thats the point. Its a dumping ground for stuff thats not used very often.
But it has to be GB to actually make a difference. If your swap is not full of GB of data, then obviously you don't need it (or it just becomes a reserve when you are in an OOM situation - but this is where you don't want to be with swap avaible either)
> > but its rarely gb at the same time. Thats the point. Its a dumping ground for stuff thats not used very often.
> But it has to be GB to actually make a difference. If your swap is not full of GB of data, then obviously you don't need it (or it just becomes a reserve when you are in an OOM situation - but this is where you don't want to be with swap avaible either)
I think the parent meant, that it barely needs to be read / write GBs at the same time. Not that that much swap is never being in use at the same time.
So you can use a lot of swap, but will never need to read it back in all at once.
But it has to be GB to actually make a difference. If your swap is not full of GB of data, then obviously you don't need it (or it just becomes a reserve when you are in an OOM situation - but this is where you don't want to be with swap avaible either)