![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/77cb4da5f72bc176182dcc33f03a18f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 27/05/2019 19.16, Robert Hardy wrote:
On Monday, May 27, 2019 4:58:23 AM CDT Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 27/05/2019 00.45, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Dave Howorth <> [05-26-19 18:38]:
I never bother with swap partitions any more. I just use a file for swap space.
I did that also, but now just add enough ram to not need it :)
Unless you want to hibernate. I do.
Could you expand on that a little? How much swap space?
That's the big question! :-)
I'm guessing it should be larger than ram at least, but by how much? All of ram + all of swap? That doesn't quite compute.
An exact answer would be "as much as used RAM + used swap"
I've tried it with 8GB ram, often heavily used, and >4GB swap, but the kernel wakes up "dazed and confused". I suspect it is due to not enough swap.
I use suspend to ram all the time and I like it. Wakeup is fast.
If you have 8 GiB of RAM, but only half is used (and no swap is used), then 4 would suffice. But to be safe, you would dedicate 8 plus a bit to swap. How much that bit? Huh, big question. For example, look at my case: cer@Telcontar:~> free -h total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 7,8G 6,2G 254M 352M 1,3G 983M Swap: 23G 1,1G 22G There is 6.2 GiB used plus 1,1GiB of swap alreay used, so a total of 7.3 would do - probably less because the buffers are emptied. But these days, I' end by using 7 GiB of swap. Actually, when I get to that number, hibernation seems to crash, and not for lack of space. My guess is that the devs do not test machines that swap heavily. So, quick answer, at least double that RAM. On small RAM machines, I would use triple. On machines with big RAM, maybe 1.1 of RAM. To be safe and for another reason and just because I have 23 GiB of swap. The other reason is that it is an SSD, to allow rotating of sectors. Maybe doesn't work like that, but I did it that way. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.0 x86_64 at Telcontar)