SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Hello!
I last days i reading a lot information about creating software RAID 1 massives under linux, and in one document in russian ( looks it translate from english, but not contains any link to original) i found advice to create swap partition with minimum size of RAM *1.25, because, as they wrote, in such a kernel panic, for all ram amount must be entire on swap partition, because if not, can be data damage in next partition space on HDD.... ( it means, when encaounter a kernel panic situation, kernel puts all RAM contain to swap file / partition).
can anyone, who is close with "how kernel works in low level", comment this? it is a real thing, or myth?
Myth - absolute rubbish.
In a panic, the contents of memory are not (usually) written anywhere - all processing effectively just "stops". It is possible to configure things like kdump to write out dumps, but even that won't write over the current swap partition.
Ever since I've had systems with 1GB or more of RAM, I've stopped adding a swap partition and never had a problem yet. I don't know though if the fs one uses would make any difference, but I've been a firm believer (and it's paid off many, many times!) in reiserfs...just in case that happens to come up for any reason.
2 syg00: thanks for clarification.
2 irgunII: i found, even small swapspace enabled do system work better. after i installed slack14 32bit on my home desktop with 3 gb ram, i do with commented swap in fstab, but sometimes after a few hours work ( i use kde) it strangely lost network settings ( ip address). maybe its not chained, but after that i enable swap space, and computer looks like work a bit better. simply me own opinion...
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.