Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:44:23 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: Mike Barton <mike@dad.state.vt.us> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Disklabel 101? Message-ID: <20010410074423.B71179@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <000001c0bfd9$3b96a230$1201a8c0@sanmik.com>; from mike@dad.state.vt.us on Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 10:24:12AM -0400 References: <20010405111707.A35325@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <3ACE972D.A13CF44C@babbleon.org> <15054.57979.84674.462609@guru.mired.org> <000001c0bfd9$3b96a230$1201a8c0@sanmik.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2001-Apr-07 10:24:12 -0400, Mike Barton <mike@dad.state.vt.us> wrote: >Are there any issues with placing swap first on the hard drive? I think this is safe for FreeBSD, but some Unix variants will start writing at the beginning of the swap partition. This means that if the swap partition is at the start of a slice, you'll over-write the partition table and bootblocks. > Unless you >insist on filling the drive, it seems to me that this swap arrangement would >result in less stack travel. AFAIK, for most modern disks, latency is larger than the seek time. The major advantage is that the outer tracks provide a higher data rate than inner track. If you are really concerned about minimising seek/latency overheads, you need to study your disk access patterns and take them into account. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010410074423.B71179>