From owner-freebsd-newbies Thu Oct 14 5:57: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org Received: from guppy.pond.net (guppy.pond.net [205.240.25.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E7314D9D for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 05:57:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gryph@mindless.com) Received: from mindless.com (snapuser2-89.pacificcrest.net [216.36.34.89]) by guppy.pond.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA05436; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 05:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3805D316.9EC37F48@mindless.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 05:56:54 -0700 From: "D.M.P." Organization: dmp@aracnet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marty Poulin Cc: freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SV: Disks...? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Marty Poulin wrote: > > Sort of on the subject, > > I've been wondering for the last little while whether it would be > beneficial to assign the swap partition to a separate disk - has anyone > tried this? If so, how did you find it affected system performance? > Common sense tells me that it would speed the system up, > especially if the swap disk is on a separate controller, > but common sense has been known to lie to me in the past. Putting the swap partition on a seperate disk does improve performance. But you won't see much improvement if both drives are on the same IDE cable because only one drive can be reading or writing at any given moment. You'll get the most improvement if the drives are on seperate IDE cables or on SCSI, where both drives can be reading or writing at the same time. This holds true for any OS that uses swap-space. -- "Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable than fidelity. Truth and faithfulness are the most sacred excellences and endowments of the human mind." -- Cicero To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message