>> Linux doesn't grow swapfiles at all. It uses what's there at mkswap time.
>> You can make new ones of course - manually.
>
>And this part. I've never known linux to grow the swap file. I did try the
>sparse one a long time ago. Of course it didn't work.
I can't remember where exactly I
Linux doesn't grow swapfiles at all. It uses what's there at mkswap time.
You can make new ones of course - manually.
And this part. I've never known linux to grow the swap file. I did try the
sparse one a long time ago. Of course it didn't work.
I can't remember where exactly I read it
Helge Hafting wrote:
> Wakko Warner wrote:
> You don't need to zero out swapfiles. You can fill them with anything,
> even /dev/urandom. Zero-filling may be faster though. A swapfile
> is not zero the second time you use it - then it contains leftovers
> from last time.
I understand this part.
Helge Hafting wrote:
Wakko Warner wrote:
You don't need to zero out swapfiles. You can fill them with anything,
even /dev/urandom. Zero-filling may be faster though. A swapfile
is not zero the second time you use it - then it contains leftovers
from last time.
I understand this part.
So
Wakko Warner wrote:
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
You misunderstood entirely what I said.
There is no portable/documented way to grow a file without having the file
system null its content. However why is that a problem, you dont create
those
Wakko Warner wrote:
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
You misunderstood entirely what I said.
There is no portable/documented way to grow a file without having the file
system null its content. However why is that a problem, you dont create
those
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> So are you saying that if I create a swap partition it's best to use dd to
> zero it out before mkswap?
Nope I did not. However I dont know of any other shell tool which can do it
that easyly.
> As far as portable, we're talking about linux,
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > You misunderstood entirely what I said.
>
> There is no portable/documented way to grow a file without having the file
> system null its content. However why is that a problem, you dont create
> those files very often. Besides
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
You misunderstood entirely what I said.
There is no portable/documented way to grow a file without having the file
system null its content. However why is that a problem, you dont create
those files very often. Besides it is
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
So are you saying that if I create a swap partition it's best to use dd to
zero it out before mkswap?
Nope I did not. However I dont know of any other shell tool which can do it
that easyly.
As far as portable, we're talking about linux, portability is
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> You misunderstood entirely what I said.
There is no portable/documented way to grow a file without having the file
system null its content. However why is that a problem, you dont create
those files very often. Besides it is better for the OS to be able
Eric Sandall wrote:
> >Of course, now this begs the question: Is it possible to create a large
> >file
> >w/o actually writing that much to the device (ie uninitialized). There's
> >absolutely no reason that a swap file needs to be fully initialized, only
> >part which mkswap does. Of course, I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Wakko Warner wrote:
Jeremy Nickurak wrote:
On ven, 2005-07-08 at 03:22 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
No, it is creating files by appending just like any other file write. One
could think about a call to create unfragmented
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Wakko Warner wrote:
Jeremy Nickurak wrote:
On ven, 2005-07-08 at 03:22 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
No, it is creating files by appending just like any other file write. One
could think about a call to create unfragmented
Eric Sandall wrote:
Of course, now this begs the question: Is it possible to create a large
file
w/o actually writing that much to the device (ie uninitialized). There's
absolutely no reason that a swap file needs to be fully initialized, only
part which mkswap does. Of course, I would
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
You misunderstood entirely what I said.
There is no portable/documented way to grow a file without having the file
system null its content. However why is that a problem, you dont create
those files very often. Besides it is better for the OS to be able to
Jeremy Nickurak wrote:
> On ven, 2005-07-08 at 03:22 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > No, it is creating files by appending just like any other file write. One
> > could think about a call to create unfragmented files however since this is
> > not always working best is to create those files
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:35:58AM -0600, Jeremy Nickurak wrote:
> On ven, 2005-07-08 at 03:22 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > No, it is creating files by appending just like any other file write. One
> > could think about a call to create unfragmented files however since this is
> > not always
On ven, 2005-07-08 at 03:22 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> No, it is creating files by appending just like any other file write. One
> could think about a call to create unfragmented files however since this is
> not always working best is to create those files young or defragment them
> before
On ven, 2005-07-08 at 03:22 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
No, it is creating files by appending just like any other file write. One
could think about a call to create unfragmented files however since this is
not always working best is to create those files young or defragment them
before
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:35:58AM -0600, Jeremy Nickurak wrote:
On ven, 2005-07-08 at 03:22 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
No, it is creating files by appending just like any other file write. One
could think about a call to create unfragmented files however since this is
not always working
Jeremy Nickurak wrote:
On ven, 2005-07-08 at 03:22 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
No, it is creating files by appending just like any other file write. One
could think about a call to create unfragmented files however since this is
not always working best is to create those files young or
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I guess/hope dd always makes it contiguously.
No, it is creating files by appending just like any other file write. One
could think about a call to create unfragmented files however since this is
not always working best is to create those files young or
On 7/8/05, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Given this situation, is there any significant performance or
> > > > stability advantage to using a swap partition instead of a swap file?
> > >
> > > In 2.6 they have the same reliability
Mike Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Given this situation, is there any significant performance or
> > > stability advantage to using a swap partition instead of a swap file?
> >
> > In 2.6 they have the same reliability and they will have the same
> > performance unless the swapfile
> > Given this situation, is there any significant performance or
> > stability advantage to using a swap partition instead of a swap file?
>
> In 2.6 they have the same reliability and they will have the same
> performance unless the swapfile is badly fragmented.
Thanks for the reply -- that's
Given this situation, is there any significant performance or
stability advantage to using a swap partition instead of a swap file?
In 2.6 they have the same reliability and they will have the same
performance unless the swapfile is badly fragmented.
Thanks for the reply -- that's been
Mike Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given this situation, is there any significant performance or
stability advantage to using a swap partition instead of a swap file?
In 2.6 they have the same reliability and they will have the same
performance unless the swapfile is badly
On 7/8/05, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given this situation, is there any significant performance or
stability advantage to using a swap partition instead of a swap file?
In 2.6 they have the same reliability and they will have
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
I guess/hope dd always makes it contiguously.
No, it is creating files by appending just like any other file write. One
could think about a call to create unfragmented files however since this is
not always working best is to create those files young or
30 matches
Mail list logo