On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 08:56:01AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 06:08, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 02:03:26PM -0700, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> > > J. Zidar said on Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 10:49:21PM +0200:
> > > > I see. I'm pretty new to Debian and all. I've read that a swap partition is
> > > A swap partition is "better", in that it's a bit faster than a swap file.
> > > However, it's arguable if it matters for you (ie, it depends entirely on the
> > > load of the system in question).
> >
> > Just as a point of interest, swap files are effectively as fast as swap
> > partitions in 2.5/2.6.
>
> Reason being they now use the same mechanism to be accessed. Also, if
> you are using LVM Like I do:
>
> knight:~# swapon -s
> Filename Type Size Used Priority
> /dev/rootvg/swap00lv partition 1048568 3140 -1
> /dev/rootvg/swap01lv partition 1048568 0 -2
>
> Kinda makes no-sense to worry about it.
Silly question: why aren't you mounting your swap with equal priority
so they load balance?
--
Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nnorman@incanus.net
See, if you were allowed to keep the money, you wouldn't create
jobs with it. You'd throw it in the bushes or something. But
the government will spend it, thereby creating jobs.
-- Dave Barry
Attachment:
pgphYHi7IZgqZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature