On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Steven Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Ping? Nobody? So no idea why a separate dedicate virtual drive is recommended for the pagefile.sys? Like I said, using shared storage as a backend be it raided volume, iscsi, fiberchannel or nfs is in effect the same thing as having one physical drive since all IO ops are effectively distributed evenly across all drives, making the volume akin to one physical drive. If there really is no benefit then they are wrong and having the swap file on any volume really is fine. Maybe VMware and NetApp are wrong and just have subscribed to group think. -- 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
