On 11/02/2002 09:14 AM, Leon A. Goldstein wrote:
This is one of those debates that really has less & less relevancy as technology improves. I think you need to first consider whether you're really making significant usage of swap to begin with. If your memory usage is such that you rarely dip into swap, then the number & size of the swap partitions is really unimportant. If you're really concerned about performance, then you should install more physical memory, since that's where you'll always, without fail, see better perforamance.This may have been discussed already: is there a performance advantage using e.g. two swap partitions @ 128 MB vs. one 256 MB partition? Looks like I will be replacing an ailing HD shortly.
Now as for your actual question, it really depends on the speed & type of HD you have. If you've got drives with faster rpm's, on a controller with higher throughput, then keeping all on one drive prolly won't see any lesser performance than splitting it up. If the drives are slow, then putting the swap partitions on separate physical drives (on separate controllers) would prolly be beneficial. Of course, this isn't neccesarily the case with SCSI hardware, since it tends to have better single controller performance & throughput than IDE.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com
4:05pm up 21 days, 5:22, 1 user, load average: 0.05, 0.27, 0.47
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
