That would depend on how much real storage was being backed by the swap
file. If it's a scaled percentage, then I would think the performance
would be similar?
|---------+---------------------------->
| | "Post, Mark K" |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | m> |
| | Sent by: Linux on|
| | 390 Port |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | IST.EDU> |
| | |
| | |
| | 09/18/2003 09:53 |
| | AM |
| | Please respond to|
| | Linux on 390 Port|
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: swapfile over 2G on 64bit
|
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
As others have already stated, absolutely. I have to wonder, though, just
what kind of performance is going to be achieved if a single Linux/390
system ever has 4GB of storage actually swapped out. That sounds pretty,
ummm, _slow_ to me.
Mark Post
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Duerbusch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: swapfile over 2G on 64bit
Can you get around this by having multiple swap files?
Tom Duerbusch
THD Consultikng
Post, Mark K wrote:
>Just guessing, but I would say it is mkswap itself that has a 32-bit
>limitation in it somewhere. (This _is_ beta code after all.) Maybe try
>downloading a more current version of the source and building it will help
>(if you're not a C programmer).
>
>
>Mark Post
>
>
