As I thought, the idea is ludicrous. I knew that, but I needed to make
absolutely sure I wasn't mistaken. This isn't the first time the decision
process was flawed. <sigh>
--On Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:03 AM -0500 Daniel Monjar
<Daniel.Monjar_at_na.biomerieux.com> wrote:
> 4100 with 5.1a...
>
> We had what looked to be a physical memory error this morning. The admin
> on duty spent about an hour playing with the swap file size, decreasing
> it in stages as an attempt to make the physcial error go away. He
> reasoning was that the large swapfile file caused the system to access a
> part of physical memory that was bad. So by decreasing the size of the
> swap file he figured that as some point we'd stop accessing the "bad"
> memory.
>
> Before I call BS on this I wanted to check to make sure that my
> understanding was correct. I don't see any way that the size of the swap
> file would affect which locations of physcial memory would be accessed.
> I don't know of any OS that works that way, certianly not Tru64, VMS or
> NT. Am I wrong?
>
> --
> Daniel Monjar
> IS Manager, Technical Services
> bioMérieux, Inc.
> Durham, NC US
>
--
Daniel Monjar
IS Manager, Technical Services
bioMérieux, Inc.
Durham, NC US
Received on Fri Feb 08 2002 - 15:37:03 NZDT