On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 18:14, Nathan E Norman wrote: > 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? Because they are on the same disk... and I don't like swap "chunks" any larger than 1GB. My rootvg only has /, /boot and swap on it. Other than that, no reason. Now if it was on different IO channels... that'd be different. -- greg, greg@gregfolkert.net REMEMBER ED CURRY! http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry Your pendulous thorax makes cellists envious of the rotund sounds emanating from your nose in D minor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part