![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 1/22/06, Chase Venters <chase.venters@clientec.com> wrote: > Just as a curiosity... does anyone have any guesses as to the runtime > performance cost of hosting one or more swap files (which thanks to on demand > creation and growth are presumably built of blocks scattered around the disk) > versus having one or more simple contiguous swap partitions? > > I think it's probably a given that swap partitions are better; I'm just > curious how much better they might actually be. If you google "mac os x swap partition", you'll find benchmarks from several years ago. (Although, those benchmarks are with a partition dedicated to the dynamically created swap files. It does more or less ensure that the files are contiguous though.) Mac OS X was *much* more of a dog back then, in terms of performance, so I don't know how relevant those benchmarks are nowadays, but it might be a starting point for answering your question. -- -Barry K. Nathan <barryn@pobox.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-01-23 09:22 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||