On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 08:56:01AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 06:08, Rob Weir wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 02:03:26PM -0700, Mark Ferlatte wrote: > > > J. Zidar said on Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 10:49:21PM +0200: > > > > I see. I'm pretty new to Debian and all. I've read that a swap partition is > > > A swap partition is "better", in that it's a bit faster than a swap file. > > > However, it's arguable if it matters for you (ie, it depends entirely on the > > > load of the system in question). > > > > Just as a point of interest, swap files are effectively as fast as swap > > partitions in 2.5/2.6. > > Reason being they now use the same mechanism to be accessed. Also, if > you are using LVM Like I do: > > knight:~# swapon -s > Filename Type Size Used Priority > /dev/rootvg/swap00lv partition 1048568 3140 -1 > /dev/rootvg/swap01lv partition 1048568 0 -2 > > Kinda makes no-sense to worry about it.
Silly question: why aren't you mounting your swap with equal priority so they load balance? -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] See, if you were allowed to keep the money, you wouldn't create jobs with it. You'd throw it in the bushes or something. But the government will spend it, thereby creating jobs. -- Dave Barry
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
