On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Steven Edwards <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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). > ... > > 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? > Frankly, the dimension of your case is beyond my experience. All I can think of is the usual issue: A separate filesys, or rather a separate *drive*, for swap reduce butterfly-seeking for the read-write arm in the drive, because the drive don't have to satisfy regular IO alongside page swapping. This makes the swapping faster and more efficient. I guess this applies even if you've got local striped raid volumes, or you swap over a fiber, because in the end it all comes down on a harddisk (or several). Best Regards // Love
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
