-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Thursday 2007-04-05 at 08:36 +0800, Gavin Chester wrote:
> The 2x ram figure for swap was always very arbitrary,
Yes.
Actually, that figure was the ratio given for Windows (around 3.x) because
that was the maximum it could handle.
I have a machine around with a 20x ratio, Linux has no such limitation.
> according to what
> I have read. In fact, these days with ram being comparatively cheap
> there is argument for reducing that swap ratio, or even having NO swap
> partition at all - especially if you are looking at >1GB of ram in your
> machine.
There is still a good reason to have more swap than ram: we need it to be
able to suspend to disk. And suspending and recovering to/from disk is way
faster than halting/booting.
> > > Would it be best not to use the third one as a swap drive and leave
> > > the swap drive on the root drive?
>
> If you must have swap, yes it would be best to have it on the first
> sectors
There are always discussions about which is faster: some say the first
sectors, some others the last sectors... best thing is to measure it, if
speed is important. It varies. I have a disk that is faster at around 1/3
of its size. If swap speed is important (ie, swap is really going to be
used) best strategy is probably to use several swaps in several disks with
the same priority: the kernel will distribute usage evenly, dividing the
load and multiplying the speed. But in that case, suspending will probably
not work.
- --
Cheers,
Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFGFFnqtTMYHG2NR9URAjdjAJ0QSitvda8G/17lKnzE0++JfceHnACfZ3IR
q+C0hmMNrmgdFRsHQ76vvqE=
=EsYB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
