-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 20 October 2004 04:19 pm, Ritesh Agrawal wrote: > Sudev Barar wrote: > | On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 18:05, Raj Shekhar wrote: > |>>2. what happens if we assign more? > | > | Since no one has answered this I can chip in to say that there is max > | limit to swap. I think in RH implementations it is 2GB. > > In my views , many swap partitions on diffrent harddisks(if your > machine has more than one harddisk) can increase the performance of your > machine,
Yes, In my opinion it does give a performance boost. > But what would be better option , single large swap partition or many > small swap partitions (approx. 256 MB) in a hardisk ? > > correct me if i am wrong. AFAIK swap on multiple partitions and even on multiple disks (if you've got more that one) can bring better performance. My way of thinking about swapping is paging idle processes in the core onto the disk. Take an example of RAID. RAID - 4 & 5, which have redundancy features are said better. Why ? Read - Write and Disk IO is splitted onto multiple disks because data resides on multiple disks. In the same way if swapping is done on multiple partitions on multiple disks the disk read-write heads will get lesser overhead and thus will boost performance. Please don't question me for any thing technical in it. It's just my personal thought from past experiences. rrs - -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf RESEARCHUT -- http://www.researchut.com Gnupg Key ID: 04F130BC "Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is research". -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBeUim4Rhi6gTxMLwRAmrhAKCy2+WoPUb6b2ZGcG0WN6CojEX14ACfaSoa uVkHju3wNVoIbrP8zfdbXn4= =LjkY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
