Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 01:39:12 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: lists-freebsd@silverwraith.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A New FreeBSD Server Message-ID: <20060625.013912.-1648696833.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20060625064303.GR19592@silverwraith.com> References: <449D8616.5040306@tamara-b.org> <17565.37706.966913.737964@bhuda.mired.org> <20060625064303.GR19592@silverwraith.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20060625064303.GR19592@silverwraith.com>
Avleen Vig <lists-freebsd@silverwraith.com> writes:
: On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 03:32:26PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
: > Why not RAID your swap? The extra reliability might not be worth very
: > much, but the extra performance couldn't hurt - unless you don't plan
: > on swapping at all. This is enough of a win that the swap subsystem
: > will interleave swap usage across multiple drives, a facility that
: > predates RAID. If you just split your swap across multiple drives, you
: > get RAID0 behavior from swap.
:
: Really? I thought it was possible to interleave multiple swap devices.
: I'm probably wrong, but I thought I remembered seeing 'interleaved'
: somewhere. Maybe my definition of interleaved is differented from
: someone elses :-)
Swapping to multiple devices does tend, on the average, to spread the
load. But on the average doesn't mean all the time. When swapping to
a device that's on a RAID, then you get the interleave every single
time.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060625.013912.-1648696833.imp>