Comments on: Good Ol’ Swap http://boredandblogging.com/2007/05/20/good-ol-swap/ absolutely nuthin' useful... Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:07:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: martin http://boredandblogging.com/2007/05/20/good-ol-swap/comment-page-1/#comment-372 martin Mon, 21 May 2007 22:15:52 +0000 http://boredandblogging.com/2007/05/20/good-ol-swap/#comment-372 """I’m still working on a flash-drive based swap (like we discussed at dinner when I was out there). flash based would sure be faster than drive based.""" It will be faster. But swap usage patterns tend to shred flash memory quite fast. (remember you only have limited write cycles with flash) “”"I’m still working on a flash-drive based swap (like we discussed at dinner when I was out there). flash based would sure be faster than drive based.”"”

It will be faster. But swap usage patterns tend to shred flash memory quite fast. (remember you only have limited write cycles with flash)

]]> By: suspend2 http://boredandblogging.com/2007/05/20/good-ol-swap/comment-page-1/#comment-371 suspend2 Mon, 21 May 2007 19:47:08 +0000 http://boredandblogging.com/2007/05/20/good-ol-swap/#comment-371 suspend2 works with a swap file suspend2 works with a swap file

]]> By: Christer Edwards http://boredandblogging.com/2007/05/20/good-ol-swap/comment-page-1/#comment-370 Christer Edwards Mon, 21 May 2007 02:14:30 +0000 http://boredandblogging.com/2007/05/20/good-ol-swap/#comment-370 I'm not sure about problems with suspend and file based swap but I know suspend won't work if swap is included in an LVM (default on FC/F7). It sure is nice though that we can add a file and swap-on, swap-off for additional swap space. I'm still working on a flash-drive based swap (like we discussed at dinner when I was out there). flash based would sure be faster than drive based. I’m not sure about problems with suspend and file based swap but I know suspend won’t work if swap is included in an LVM (default on FC/F7). It sure is nice though that we can add a file and swap-on, swap-off for additional swap space.

I’m still working on a flash-drive based swap (like we discussed at dinner when I was out there). flash based would sure be faster than drive based.

]]> By: Pete http://boredandblogging.com/2007/05/20/good-ol-swap/comment-page-1/#comment-369 Pete Mon, 21 May 2007 01:21:28 +0000 http://boredandblogging.com/2007/05/20/good-ol-swap/#comment-369 afaik, suspend to disk (hibernate) doesn't work with file based swap afaik, suspend to disk (hibernate) doesn’t work with file based swap

]]> By: Porges http://boredandblogging.com/2007/05/20/good-ol-swap/comment-page-1/#comment-368 Porges Sun, 20 May 2007 23:09:08 +0000 http://boredandblogging.com/2007/05/20/good-ol-swap/#comment-368 You said; <blockquote>While a swap partition may provide slightly better performance ...</blockquote> However; <blockquote>Not so. With a 2.4.x kernel swap files were slower than swap partitions, but with the 2.6 kernel a swap file is just as fast as a swap partition.</blockquote> —<a href="http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/5/29/3" rel="nofollow">Jesper Juhl</a> You said;

While a swap partition may provide slightly better performance …

However;

Not so. With a 2.4.x kernel swap files were slower than swap
partitions, but with the 2.6 kernel a swap file is just as fast as a
swap partition.

—Jesper Juhl

]]> By: Henrik Pauli http://boredandblogging.com/2007/05/20/good-ol-swap/comment-page-1/#comment-367 Henrik Pauli Sun, 20 May 2007 22:11:17 +0000 http://boredandblogging.com/2007/05/20/good-ol-swap/#comment-367 Or one can use swapspace which will dynamically add and remove swap files as required — no wasted, fixed size partitions, and Just Works :) Or one can use swapspace which will dynamically add and remove swap files as required — no wasted, fixed size partitions, and Just Works :)

]]>