On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, ken wrote: > In the absence of actual evidence to the contrary, I'd go with the > recommendations in the docs regarding swap. Personally, I think that advice needs updating for machines with large amounts of memory to include an upper bound. In general use I'm not sure I can see going above 8Gbytes of swap, and certainly with 96Gbytes of RAM, I'm not about to allocate a considerable chunck of disk to either doing nothing for the lifetime of the machine, or more likely every now and then created a long grinding death due to runaway memory consumption where it would have simply gone swiftly pop otherwise. jh