Feature Request: Increase default swap file size

[skinsman]

The default swap file size isn't large enough, notably for a system with 4GB RAM where the default 4GB swap is easily consumed by a web browser opening a few memory-hungry sites.

This was the single big issue I had in migrating several PCs from Windows 10. As a Linux desktop noob it took a while to sort out what the problem was and how to solve it. Meanwhile I was left with doubts that the PCs were going to be viable for ongoing use.

With disk space rarely being in short supply it seems much more welcoming to new users to allocate more space for swap.

[Fantu]

Using too much disk swap on current drives, which are almost all SSDs (even on older PCs, HDDs are often replaced with SSDs), is not a good idea, especially with newer drives (especially low-end consumer ones), which are increasingly less durable and reliable (and also less efficient). With common Linux distros, baseline boot consumption is max 2 GB, unlike with recent Windows, where I'm more frequently seeing boot usage of 5 GB or more. Then unfortunately there is the plague of browsers and especially modern sites that end up wasting absurd amounts of RAM, if you haven't already done so, install an adblocker such as ublock origin which helps slightly.
However, if you need a high level of RAM usage, even on older PCs, it's advisable to increase it, aside from RAM for servers and workstations, older, old RAM is often available for a low price, while for recent RAMs unfortunately with the AI ​​plague it is becoming more and more expensive.
If this isn't possible, even if the PC is older, but has a good enough CPU, you can use zram or zswap to compress RAM, but you need to configure it carefully.

[fosslover306]

Upgrading a inkjet to a laser printer, best use of money I have ever seen.

When I say cups is a security issue I mean last year it was discovered a fake printer, or a real printer infected with injected data when used could create a reverse shell right back to some creep anywhere on the internet.

That 'specific' issue was patched in 2025 in a matter of months after being known about for about 10 years, after the pr disaster forced the cups devolopers to actually fix it which showed an unwillingness to fix security problems "it only effects cups servers connected to the internet, so it's not a problem". Signed the guy who wrote the book on cups.

If nothing else is taken from this keep your printer updated, use the firewall on your router, and don't trust any strange new network printers and everything should be as fine as it gets with printers.

Granted it is a general problem with wifi printing in generall, USB printing is not a problem as far as I know.

[Fantu]

One last thing, perhaps obvious, but one that I see too often overlooked and neglected: backup.
Unfortunately, I've seen several cases, even in companies, not just for personal use (where few people do it).
It should always be done, unless the PC contains data that doesn't matter.
In your case, with an SSD, which seems to use a lot of swap and therefore many more writes than a common one, for example, it degrades more quickly. Not to mention that customer SSDs, from what I'm seeing, aren't very reliable or long-lasting. I've seen and am unfortunately seeing many that stop working or have problems long before the minimum writes estimated by the warranty, perhaps not easily visible, often silent corruptions that in some cases aren't even reported in the smart data.

[fosslover306]

@Fantu Seriusly? a SSD won't report it is failing?

Nice to know, and yet SSD manufurers wonder why some people distrust SSDs.

[Fantu]

Unfortunately, yes, both at work and outside of work, I've seen SSDs fail well before their estimated lifespan (usually defined as TBW). Unlike HDDs, it's often difficult to detect that they're problematic or have had bad blocks. These automatically reassign and continue to function, but they cause silent corruption, and these errors aren't always reported in the smart data.
After having problems also with disks in my PCs, I recently bought used enterprise SSDs (but you have to be careful with them too, because unfortunately, some retailers reset the smart data), those are more reliable and long-lasting, and the risk of silent corruption should be much rarer. I also used more filesystem with checksum on data (like btrfs), at least to detect silent corruption.
In practice, technologies have improved, and SSD controllers and firmware are generally better (it varies depending on the range and whether it's enterprise), but the further you go, the worse the basic memory and cache (and therefore performance) become.
The difference between SLC or MLC drives with DRAM and static cache and QLC drives without DRAM and static cache (now the most common new drives) is enormous in terms of durability, reliability, and performance.
Not to mention that, to pay less, many people increasingly end up buying scam drives (smaller effective size or absurd ones with an SD card as memory), and many, instead of using low-quality chips, are those that, for example, failed QA testing (when they were originally intended for "normal" drives).
Of some low-end customers that I used outside of work, for those who wanted to spend little, there were some SanDisks that were decent despite the low price when they had MLC memories and DRAM cache, while at the same price the latest ones with QLC memories, no DRAM and no static cache are poor and with absolutely terrible performance, for a bit of sustained work even HDDs are better (for example an old WD Enterprise hdd).
with mid-range Samsungs, apart from a few cases of initial firmware problems, it seems to go quite decently (not many errors and it always seems to signal something in the smart) but as for low-end customers, I really have no idea which ones I should buy lately, assuming that any decent ones still exist.

[fosslover306]

Have you tried the flash friendly filesystem? It has saved me a few times with failing SD cards, it detected that changes were not getting saved refused to accept any new data.

And who thought it was a good idea to be able to reset the smart data?

[cplittlfield]

The default swap file size isn't large enough, notably for a system with 4GB RAM where the default 4GB swap is easily consumed by a web browser opening a few memory-hungry sites.

This was the single big issue I had in migrating several PCs from Windows 10. As a Linux desktop noob it took a while to sort out what the problem was and how to solve it. Meanwhile I was left with doubts that the PCs were going to be viable for ongoing use.

With disk space rarely being in short supply it seems much more welcoming to new users to allocate more space for swap.

The official recommendation I've run across, which ultimately comes from RHEL, is 2 GB of swap for 4 GB of RAM. I bow to your experience, however. No default is going to be perfect for everyone. You are right that disk space is usually easier to find than additional RAM, so an amount of swap space that meets your needs is a good idea. I take it you've already figured out how to enlarge your swap file, but if you want help, people on the Linux Mint forums can provide it.

I'm not a fan of RAM disks, in situations where RAM is already in short supply. Especially since the point of swap is not actually to provide "extra RAM," it is to provide a space for the system to stash data that needs to be cleared from RAM. It's especially important for data that does not exist in some form on the drive. Many people's understanding of swap has been shaped by Windows, whereas Linux (as in so many other things) handles swap very differently.

You may find this discussion helpful: https://chrisdown.name/2018/01/02/in-defence-of-swap.html