Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:52:35 -0500 (EST) | From | Rob Hagopian <> | Subject | Re: Ideas for memory management hackers (2) |
| |
Is it possible to have another partition type? That would eliminate any compatibility problems between the two... -Rob H.
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, teunis wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Matti Aarnio wrote: > > > > From: Evan Jeffrey <ejeffrey@utrek.ml.org> > > ... > > > I think it would be better to create a "new" swapfile type for > 128 (or > > > 512) MB swap areas, where the swap area signature (SWAP-SPACE ?) would be > > > replaced by something like "NEW-SWAPXX" where XX is a short int indicating > > > the number of bitmap blocks at the beginning of this swap area. This give > > > us an ~8 TB theoretical limit, which is pretty big. > > > > Theorethically nice, but I am such a person who has a habit > > of jumping back and forth between radically different kernel > > versions (2.0.x and 2.1.x!), and therefore I do prefer methods > > that don't require me do radical operations at system boot; > > like "mkswap" at each boot on which even the "mkswap" should > > recognize what the system understands at the moment... > > BIG swap vs normal swap? > have normal swap operate normally? > > You'll never notice - unless you decide to create a >128M swapfile (i386) > and then you'll discover 2.0.x can't handle such swap sizes..... > [and it will (hopefully?) be ignored...] > > G'day, eh? :) > - Teunis >
| |