From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Apr 21 14:45: 6 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from jig.ordway.org (jig.ordway.org [209.98.93.103]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08C515925 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:45:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cpalmer@jig.ordway.org) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:42:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Christopher Palmer To: "Crist J. Clark" Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Performance Question In-Reply-To: <199904191956.PAA08664@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Crist J. Clark wrote: If you do a lot of swapping (high memory requirements or small amounts of RAM or both), it's better to have your swap partition on a different physical disk than your main data parition. This way, the head on one drive isn't alternating between reading/writing swap and reading/writing data. I have a NeXTStation whose internal HDD is small, so I installed the OS on a larger external one, and set the internal one to be exclusively swap. Performance improved noticeably. My Linux system has a similar situation: swap and / are on one disk, and /home (where most of my data reads and writes happen) is on a second disk. Same thing: better performance than if everything were on one disk. I think swap is a great use for those old disks. I hate seeing resources go to waste. Christopher Palmer Assistant Systems Administrator, Ordway Music Theatre cpalmer@jig.ordway.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message