On 9/29/06, Adam Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 29, 2006, at 7:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My past installations have used 4 same-sized v-disk areas with
> ascending
> priorities. I was under the impression that Linux references an entire
> v-disk when it goes to swap, so smaller v-disks would be more
> efficient.
> But I'm not sure that's completely true. I want to simplify the fstab
> configuration and reduce the potential memory footprint, so I'm
> thinking
> of 1 moderate size v-disk, backed by 1 larger lower-priority DASD. The
> pair can be sized to whatever the applications require.
>
> Does anyone have a swap setup that optimizes performance and resource
> usage, i.e., more small v-disks vs fewer big ones, inclusion of real
> disk, etc.?
Depending on how big the guest is, I usually cascade three swap
VDISKS of increasing size and decreasing (meaning the pri= number
gets bigger), and then if I need it, a big swap on real disk below that.
You could eliminate two of these VDISKS if you wanted.
Adam
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
We had problems when we ran out of SWAP space and the system locked up.
At that time we had a v-disk of 512 MB only. We added two more SWAP
spaces with a lower priority of 2 GB each. The linux guest machine
has 4 GB of real memory defined. I have noticed that going over 512
GB of SWAP on the v-disk is a very rare occurence. am I better off
with two additional SWAP spaces or should I break them up into smaller
ones?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
