-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Thursday 2007-04-05 at 08:36 +0800, Gavin Chester wrote:
The 2x ram figure for swap was always very arbitrary,
Yes. Actually, that figure was the ratio given for Windows (around 3.x) because that was the maximum it could handle. I have a machine around with a 20x ratio, Linux has no such limitation.
according to what I have read. In fact, these days with ram being comparatively cheap there is argument for reducing that swap ratio, or even having NO swap partition at all - especially if you are looking at >1GB of ram in your machine.
There is still a good reason to have more swap than ram: we need it to be able to suspend to disk. And suspending and recovering to/from disk is way faster than halting/booting.
Would it be best not to use the third one as a swap drive and leave the swap drive on the root drive?
If you must have swap, yes it would be best to have it on the first sectors
There are always discussions about which is faster: some say the first sectors, some others the last sectors... best thing is to measure it, if speed is important. It varies. I have a disk that is faster at around 1/3 of its size. If swap speed is important (ie, swap is really going to be used) best strategy is probably to use several swaps in several disks with the same priority: the kernel will distribute usage evenly, dividing the load and multiplying the speed. But in that case, suspending will probably not work. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGFFnqtTMYHG2NR9URAjdjAJ0QSitvda8G/17lKnzE0++JfceHnACfZ3IR q+C0hmMNrmgdFRsHQ76vvqE= =EsYB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org