From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Aug 24 19:34:10 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA23941 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 19:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA23916 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 19:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id TAA20313; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 19:23:37 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199608250223.TAA20313@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Multiple swaps slow down system? To: brianc@pobox.com Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 19:23:37 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199608250134.VAA00204@ottawa.net> from "Brian Campbell" at Aug 24, 96 09:34:24 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Oh? There's no busmastering IDE support yet? Is it in the works? Yes, we have a team standing by for the moment when engineers who can build a working IDE chipset get funding. > Would you suggesting using SCSI for swap even if the IDE drive has > 50% higher throughput? Is latency an issue? Concurrency us an issue, and processor overhead may or may not bean issue. > Any hints for finding out why w/ swap on either IDE or SCSI, shutdown > takes less than 15s, but when using both it takes more than 60s? Not a clue. I'd have to see it do it... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.