-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: swap performance. From: "Distribution Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, March 18, 2003 11:03 am To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Out of interest.... I assume that much of this discussion in based on the use of SCSI, rather than IDE. In that case of IDE. From what I understand you can have only 2 devices per channel and neither devices can work at the same time (read and write I assume). Therefore in this situation it would be pointless load balancing partitions on 2 IDE disks on the same channel ? Do you agree ? When I mean pointless, I mean you don't get no performance gain. Nearly all motherboard have a least 2 IDE channels, then am I right in saying that you can load balance partition over 2 IDE channels and get a performance gain ? Regards > On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 16:05, Mirabella, Mathew J wrote: >> Wondering what views are out there regarding the benifits in >> performance, if any, in specifying the swap partition to be on a >> different physical disk from the / partition? >> > > I've always set my SWAP to be on a different physical partition - and > if it's a high-traffic server, I set the /home on a completely > seperate drive, the /tmp on a partition on a drive that ain't with the > SWAP or the OS proper, and the /var on another physical drive. Load > balancing. That's how *nix was designed from the beginning. Works like > a champ with literally any OS - OS/2, Winders, Mac, BeOS, linux - so > by having the OS on one physical spindle, and the SWAP on another > physical spindle, and the /tmp (and others) on another physical > spindle, you get the best performance overall. > > Really nice when you have the ability to work with SCSI for this as > well... > > Currently, my home setup for this beastie has > > hd0 - /boot and / (25gb outta 40gb - Winders is on the remaining bit) > hd1 - SWAP and /var (700mb for swap, the rest to 40gb for /var) > sda1 - /tmp (4.3gb SCSI) > sdb1 - /home (18gb SCSI) > hdc - CD/DVD > hdd - CDRW > > ...it flies...now when I had it ALL on the one partition - when I was > first setting up this box and testing the equipment, it was far behind > the current performance levels - but that was only for testing until I > had gotten familiar enough with the box and had a strategy for laying > out the partitions and drives... > > But, that's IMHO - others may think differently - or I hope they think > differently...(g) > > -- > Mon Mar 17 17:10:00 EST 2003 > 17:10:00 up 11:23, 3 users, load average: 0.72, 0.53, 0.33 > ------------------------------------------------------------------ | > __ __ | kuhn media australia | | > / ,, /| |'-. | http://kma.0catch.com | | > .\__/ || | | |=================================| | _ / > `._ \|_|_.-' | stephen kuhn | | | / > \__.`=._) (_ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | |/ ._/ > |"""""""""| > | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | |'. `\ | | > | > icq: 5483808 | | ;"""/ / | | | > | | smk ) /_/| |.-------.| | mobile: > 0410-728-389 | | ' `-`' " " | Berkeley, > New South Wales, AU | > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > linux user:267497 * MDK 9.1 * PC/Mac/Linux/Networking/Consulting > machine no:194239 * RH 7.3 * Sales - Service - Support - Tutor > ------------------------------------------------------------------ ** > This messages was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer ** > > Eisenhower!! Your mimeograph machine upsets my stomach!! > > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
