El Vie 08 Mar 2002 17:41, escribió: > <br /> > --- On Fri 03/08, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:<br /> > > > On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, gikoreno wrote:<br /> > > <br /> > > > > ><br /> > > > DISK 2:<br /> > > > SWAP 128MB<br /> > > > /usr 5GB RAID0 XFS 2nd<br /> > > > /usr/local 5GB RAID0 XFS 2nd<br /> > > > SWAP 128MB<br /> > > > /var 5GB RAID0 XFS 2nd<br /> > > > SWAP 128MB<br /> > > > /tmp 5GB XFS<br /> > > > SWAP 128MB<br /> > > > /opt 5GB RAID0 XFS 2st<br /> > > > /home 11GB RAID0 XFS 2st<br /> > > ><br /> > > ><br /> > > > Summary:<br /> > > > /boot -> 36MB<br /> > > > / -> 5GB<br /> > > > /usr -> 10GB RAID0<br /> > > > /usr/local ->10GB RAID0<br /> > > > swap -> 2GB<br /> > > > /var -> 10GB RAID0<br /> > > > /tmp -> 5GB<br /> > > > /opt -> 10GB RAID0<br /> > > > /home -> 22GB RAID0<br /> > > > X -> 16GB<br /> > > > > <br /> > > Is there a reason for breaking up swap like this? I.e., are you<br /> > > interleaving swap partitions between the others?<br /> > > <br /> > Yes, the idea was to ensure that the drive's read/write heads were always > close to a swap partition (on the faster part of the hard drive). I was > told this is supposed to improve performance.<br /> <br /> > <br /> > <hr>
hi. while that's right in the case a process needs to be swapped out, when a process or a part of it needs to be read into memory, it will be the same speed as having one single swap partition, if not slower... i'm not very aware of what algorythms linux uses for multiple swaps, but i wouldn't do that. instead, i guess having two swaps, one at the beginning of each HD would be better. someone with more knowledge about the linux virtual memory system than me could correct me, of course... see ya. Damian
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
