On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Steven Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Alex Ionescu <[email protected]> wrote: >> 1) You would get the SAME ADVANTAGE by having the FILE on another >> physical drive! > > Wouldn't you still have a problem with fragmentation leading to > additional io? I ask because the VMware/Netapp best practices for > Windows and Linux on ESX clusters still recommends a separate > filesystem dedicated to swap regardless of the the underlying backend > be it block (iSCSI, Fiberchannel) or file (NFS). This kind of > surprises me because you would think that if your using shared storage > such a NetAPP Filer the IO is spread across all drives anyway so you > save mostly nothing on IO so the only thing I can think is that a > separate filesystem saves a small amount due to consolidation of all > fragments to one location.
Sorry if the point of the question is not clear. In a RAID/NAS/SAN backend situation, ALL DRIVES are in effect the same PHYSICAL DRIVE so that's why I ask why one would still be recommended to have a separate filesystem. -- Steven Edwards "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
