From owner-freebsd-hardware Wed Aug 23 15:34:55 1995 Return-Path: hardware-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id PAA28461 for hardware-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 1995 15:34:55 -0700 Received: from penzance.econ.yale.edu (penzance.econ.yale.edu [130.132.32.100]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id PAA28454 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 1995 15:34:53 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 18:37:54 -0400 (EDT) From: -Vince- To: Brian Gottlieb cc: Gary Palmer , freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upgrade to my machine In-Reply-To: <9508231447.AA01604@beru.wustl.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: hardware-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 23 Aug 1995, Brian Gottlieb wrote: > > -Vince- (Vince) writes: > > >> freefall has 64Mb of swap on each of 3 drives. wcarchive has 200Mb on > >> each of 4 drives (total 800Mb) > > Vince> That's pretty big for a swap partitions... > > It all depends on what you're doing with it. In my machine at work I > have a 400 meg drive dedicated to swap. The circuit synthesis and > simulations we run here need LOTS of memory and swap. The "big" > machines in our group have 256M of memory and a 1 Gig swap drive. Hmmm, is there like a way to do well with a big swap and like 16 megs of physical memory? How much physical memory is on the machine with 400 meg swap? > I suppose splitting the large swap-space over 4 disks is probably much > more efficient than having just a single big (and, might I add, LOUD) > disk, but then who wants to be efficient? ;) I guess it would be since it would put less demand on the single disk ;) Cheers, -Vince- vince@kbrown.oldcampus.yale.edu - GUS Mailing Lists Admin UCLA Physics/Electrical Engineering - UC Berkeley Fall '95 SysAdmin bigbang.HIP.Berkeley.EDU - Running FreeBSD, Real UN*X for Free! Chabot Observatory & Science Center