How Big Should My Swap Partition Be?

For the last 10 years, I have been asking people more knowledgeable than I, "How big should my swap be?" and the answer has always been "Just set it to twice your RAM and forget about it." In the old days, it wasn't much to think about — 128 megs of RAM means 256 megs of swap. Now that I have 4 gigs of RAM in my laptop, I find myself wondering, "Is 8 gigs of swap really necessary?" How much swap does the average desktop user really need? Does the whole "twice your RAM" rule still apply? If so, for how much longer will it likely apply? Or will it always apply? Or have I been consistently misinformed over the last 10 years?

Comments

Re:What Has Changed?

[meringuoid]

Yeah, your 256MB of space was trivial when you had a 30GB hard drive ... and 8GB of space is still trivial with a 750GB hard drive.

I have an Eee 901. It has 1GiB of RAM and 20GB of disk space. A swap partition on the 'twice your RAM' rule would be far from trivial.

I decided to be bold and installed Hardy with no swap partition. It seems to work just fine so far; Firefox greys out for a few seconds sometimes while loading pages, which might have to do with my reckless configuration, but on the whole it's pretty snappy.

As for my desktop PC, it has 4GiB of RAM. I followed the traditional rule when I installed on that. I don't think that swap partition has ever even been used.

Re:Oh, nonsense

[Obfuscant]

Here's my understanding of the "rule".

In early Unixes (SunOS, e.g.), the memory manager was dumb and preallocated swap space sufficient to swap your entire process out if it became necessary, and it really did want contiguous. Running out of swap was common, even if it was really never used, and the "rule" to avoid that problem was 2xRAM. Further, if you had two swap partitions, or a partition and a file, your process stayed in whatever swap it started in and did not split across both. You could be out of swap space and still have a completely empty swap file.

Memory managers have gotten smarter, mapping smarter, and now swap is only used when it really is necessary. Pages that are not dirty don't get swapped, they get reloaded from the disk they came from. Pages that are swapped are often used soon enough that they never leave the RAM buffers.

Yesterday, I had a user come to me saying he was getting an "out of memory" error from Matlab. Matlab is notorious for not garbage collecting when it needs to. His Matlab process had 800Mb of resident memory, even though he said he had just 300Mb of data. The kicker? Somehow, over the last couple of years, the swap file I had created to extend the 512Mb swap partition had gotten lost. Dunno where it went, just not there. He had 512Mb of swap, and most of that wasn't being used. Never noticed it until yesterday. His 2Gb of RAM was sufficient for what he was doing.

It's a case of people who learned early just doing what they know works, telling youngsters the "rule" so they do the same thing.

Re:With a caveat...

[Gewalt]

Oh dear FSM, Please for the sake of everyones sanity, NEVER LET WINDOWS GROW THE SWAPFILE! besides the fact it it will fragment the pagefile, it will also completely lock up the computer for X amount of time... right when you need it most! ...it ALWAYS happens at a bad time.

Re:What Has Changed?

[timster]

Perhaps you'd like to tell us whether a GB is base 2 or base 10 then.

You obviously aren't worth your SALT!

Remember kids, it DEPENDS!

Bandwidth? Base 10 -- always has been.
ROM? Base 2 -- always has been -- and traditionally in bits, not bytes.
RAM? Base 2, and bytes.
Hard disk? Base 10 in the manufacturer's specs, base 2 in the OS display. Always has been that way, always will be.
Floppies? Base 2 until you get to MB, where 1MB = 1000 base 2 KB (seriously).
Clock speeds? Base 10, always has been, always will be.
Flash? Who knows.

Isn't it great that we have such an easy, convenient system that is focused around the needs of us humans, and not the needs of the computers (who don't care in the slightest).

Here's how big

[TheLink]

It does hurt to allocate a couple of gigs of swap.

I use swap only to tell me that I'm low on RAM. Basically once the machine starts using swap and getting slightly slow- it means I'm low, then I can try to shut down stuff (without it behaving otherwise strangely, or dying abruptly).

Here's how I suggest you figure out _roughly_ how much swap you need.

1) Figure out the amount of Virtual Memory your programs and services _allocate_ without really _using_ - call this F. There are some programs that allocate hundreds of MB of memory but never use it. But note that there are some programs that allocate lots of memory and may use it :). If you have lots of RAM and are too lazy to guess, set F=0.

2) Figure out your drive throughput for swap access (swap in + swap out)- this is often related to random access throughput - and for a typical hard drive it could be in the order of magnitude of 10MB/sec - call this M. Note that many flash drives have pathetic random write speeds of 4MB/sec (or even less!).

3) Figure out the time you are willing to wait for stuff to swap in and out (e.g. time to get an ssh prompt- call this T.

Swap = F + T * M.

So for example, if you have programs that allocate a total of 100MB and never use it, and your drive swap throughput is 10MB/sec and the amount of time you're willing to wait is 15 seconds.

Swap = 100MB + 15 sec * 10MB/sec = 250MB.

As you can see allocating gigabytes can hurt - since it'll take days to swap in and out processes that are using gigabytes of swap. You'll run out of time before you run out of swap, and when that happens somebody will do a hard shutdown of the machine - and that means ALL processes will be abnormally terminated, rather than just one.

Yes, there are cases where the offending program might not keep accessing all of that swap, but when a program misbehaves like that, you'd rather find out sooner rather than have to shutdown the whole computer (because it takes ages to respond).

Running programs from swap is best reserved for those who wish to experience the 1950s drum memory days. If you want to do retrocomputing keep in mind that memory speeds are now much faster than disk speeds, whereas in the 1950s memory speed = drum speed, and most modern programs assume modern memory speeds.

Re:What Has Changed?

[damn_registrars]

In that case, why can't I just let Windows XP or Vista manage the virtual memory size by itself? I don't see why I should need to establish a fixed size when Windows can manage it dynamically.

I have yet to see a version of Microsoft windows that does not end up with a hopelessly fragmented swap file over time. And if you let windows dynamically use space for swap, you're just asking for an even more hopelessly fragmented drive as it starts grabbing space anywhere it can find some to expand the swap file.

On my own windows installs I have brought some old-school unix (FreeBSD in particular) methodology to partitioning, and I make a partition just for swap (still 2x my total memory size). Of course in windows you still have to partition it, but I just don't write anything to it myself, and tell windows to only swap to that partition. Then my main partition doesn't end up as terribly fragmented.