From owner-freebsd-stable  Mon Apr  9 14:44:41 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from netau1.alcanet.com.au (ntp.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.27])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD1B37B422
	for <stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon,  9 Apr 2001 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au)
Received: from mfg1.cim.alcatel.com.au (mfg1.cim.alcatel.com.au [139.188.23.1])
	by netau1.alcanet.com.au (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00786;
	Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:44:29 +1000 (EST)
Received: from gsmx07.alcatel.com.au by cim.alcatel.com.au
 (PMDF V5.2-32 #37645) with ESMTP id <01K286MA4QNKS4N064@cim.alcatel.com.au>;
 Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:44:18 +1100
Received: (from jeremyp@localhost)	by gsmx07.alcatel.com.au (8.11.1/8.11.1)
 id f39LiND71725; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:44:24 +1000 (EST envelope-from jeremyp)
Content-return: prohibited
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:44:23 +1000
From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au>
Subject: Re: Disklabel 101?
In-reply-to: <000001c0bfd9$3b96a230$1201a8c0@sanmik.com>; from
 mike@dad.state.vt.us on Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 10:24:12AM -0400
To: Mike Barton <mike@dad.state.vt.us>
Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Mail-Followup-To: Mike Barton <mike@dad.state.vt.us>,
	stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Message-id: <20010410074423.B71179@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
References: <20010405111707.A35325@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
 <3ACE972D.A13CF44C@babbleon.org> <15054.57979.84674.462609@guru.mired.org>
 <000001c0bfd9$3b96a230$1201a8c0@sanmik.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

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