Quoting Peter Jay Salzman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Other than a story of a poorly understood case where multiple swaps per disk > seemed to suppress the expression of a VM bug, can you describe what benefit > multiple swaps per disk give?
Nope. But that reminds me of a point that might be tangentially relevant: In trying to help people with Linux problems, one tends to find that people get themselves into the _damnedest_ fixes, i.e., peculiar or brand-new or poorly supported chipsets, bizarre system configurations, and in general problems that make you scratch your head and wonder "Why on _earth_ would someone be doing that?" I mulled over that for a long while, and have built up a hypothesis: Those of us who've been doing this for a long time tend to, without really thinking about it, semi-automatically avoid most of the aforementioned troublesome situations through habits driven into our skulls by experience. This doesn't make us smarter or wiser, but it does make us, in general, _luckier_ within a limited sphere. Thus: It would never have dawned on me to create a single 32GB swap partition. I'd have instead, left to my own preferences, made three or four smaller swap partitions if for some reason I needed even half or a quarter that much total swap. I'd not have been able to tell you exactly why, but, if I sat down and tried to puzzle out why for a long time, it would have been something like this: "Well, I figure that 256MB to 1GB swap partitions have been reasonably common for a while, as have multiple swaps per system, but single gigantic ones probably haven't, which means the latter configuration might end up using code in ways that aren't broadly tested, which means that it might trigger fault conditions not yet debugged because they've been seldom seen." And, in that _particular_ situation, with that particular kernel VM, my instincts would have been right. _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
