On 2011-02-17, Lennart Sorensen lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Assuming 'resize' is defined as 'making bigger', and that you prepared
it ahead of time for such future expansions. At least that's what I
recall it being.
Preparing it ahead of time can just mean root on LVM, though. But
Olaf van der Spek olafvds...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Lennart Sorensen
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:18:33PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Is it? I thought it was the default. More doesn't make sense.
If you have 8GB ram,
Package: partman-partitioning
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
Could swap be put at the begin instead of at the end of a disk?
It's better for performance and it allows one to resize the / partition without
touching the swap one.
Greetings,
Olaf
Disk /dev/sda: 17.2 GB, 17179869184 bytes
255 heads, 63
Hi,
A Quinta 17 Fevereiro 2011 10:32:54 Olaf van der Spek você escreveu:
Package: partman-partitioning
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
Could swap be put at the begin instead of at the end of a disk?
It's better for performance and it allows one to resize the / partition
without touching the swap
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Miguel Figueiredo el...@debianpt.org wrote:
Could swap be put at the begin instead of at the end of a disk?
It's better for performance and it allows one to resize the / partition
without touching the swap one.
/boot is very small and usually it's a good idea
17.02.2011 23:27, Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Hi,
A Quinta 17 Fevereiro 2011 10:32:54 Olaf van der Spek você escreveu:
Package: partman-partitioning
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
Could swap be put at the begin instead of at the end of a disk?
It's better for performance and it allows one to
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru wrote:
There should be absolutely no difference for performance.
If by performance here you mean you want faster swap,
I'd say you want _no_ swapping instead, and if you're
heavily swapping, no swap relocation will ever help.
18.02.2011 00:09, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
[]
In contrary to that, you really want your main filesystems
to be at the beginning of the drive - the data you access
most often.
A 256 mb swap partition before a 1 tb root partition isn't really
going to make a difference.
256mb for swap is
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru wrote:
256mb for swap is very rare nowadays. yes, it makes little
Is it? I thought it was the default. More doesn't make sense.
Not true, ext supports online resize.
While ext*fs and xfs supports online resizing, one needs
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:09:37PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru wrote:
There should be absolutely no difference for performance.
If by performance here you mean you want faster swap,
I'd say you want _no_ swapping instead,
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:18:33PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Is it? I thought it was the default. More doesn't make sense.
If you have 8GB ram, 256MB swap is useless. 4 or 8GB might be useful.
Some people work with datasets that large sometimes. If you have 32MB
ram, 256MB swap is
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Lennart Sorensen
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:18:33PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Is it? I thought it was the default. More doesn't make sense.
If you have 8GB ram, 256MB swap is useless. 4 or 8GB might be useful.
Some
12 matches
Mail list logo
