On 1/22/06, Chase Venters <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just as a curiosity... does anyone have any guesses as to the runtime
> performance cost of hosting one or more swap files (which thanks to on demand
> creation and growth are presumably built of blocks scattered around the disk)
> versus having one or more simple contiguous swap partitions?
>
> I think it's probably a given that swap partitions are better; I'm just
> curious how much better they might actually be.
If you google "mac os x swap partition", you'll find benchmarks from
several years ago. (Although, those benchmarks are with a partition
dedicated to the dynamically created swap files. It does more or less
ensure that the files are contiguous though.) Mac OS X was *much* more
of a dog back then, in terms of performance, so I don't know how
relevant those benchmarks are nowadays, but it might be a starting
point for answering your question.
--
-Barry K. Nathan <[email protected]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
