Will Maier wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 09:33:57AM -0300, Aguiar Magalhaes wrote:
Is It recommended to configure swap area in both HDs ??
I don't see the point -- swap is where pages that don't fit in your
real memory go. It's less optimal than real memory in terms of
latency, but I don't see how two disks would make swap performance
much better.
This is contrary to the "usual" advice which is to split swap across
disks AFAIK. I've never done any benchmarks, but my gut feeling would
be that if the disks were on separate controllers, and if the machine
did swap regularly then two swap partitions would be beneficial. Even
on the same controller it could easily make a difference since
individual IDE/SATA disks can't actually reach the performance of the
channel as a whole.
Given that these are large hard disks, what's 2 or 4Gb in the grand
scheme? A drop in the ocean, so I would (and do) put swap on both.
Of course, if the machine actually swaps regularly then investing in
more RAM would give the best performance!
--Alex
PS If the two disks are larger than your actual needs, then you might
want to consider emergency scenarios like one of your disks dieing. If,
for example, you put a spare, bootable version of FreeBSD on the 2nd
disk to aid recovery then that OS will need a swap partition anyway and
you might as well use it regularly. $0.02
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
