13 Nov
2009
13 Nov
'09
3:50 p.m.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Steven Edwards <winehacker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Steven Edwards
<winehacker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ping? Nobody? So no idea why a separate dedicate virtual drive is
recommended for the pagefile.sys?
Like I said, using shared storage as a backend be it raided volume,
iscsi, fiberchannel or nfs is in effect the same thing as having one
physical drive since all IO ops are effectively distributed evenly
across all drives, making the volume akin to one physical drive. If
there really is no benefit then they are wrong and having the swap
file on any volume really is fine. Maybe VMware and NetApp are wrong
and just have subscribed to group think.
--
Steven Edwards
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Alex Ionescu
<ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
Sorry if the point of the question is not clear. In a RAID/NAS/SAN
backend situation, ALL DRIVES are in effect the same PHYSICAL DRIVE so
that's why I ask why one would still be recommended to have a separate
filesystem. 1) You would get the SAME ADVANTAGE by having the
FILE on another
physical drive!
Wouldn't you still have a problem with fragmentation leading to
additional io? I ask because the VMware/Netapp best practices for
Windows and Linux on ESX clusters still recommends a separate
filesystem dedicated to swap regardless of the the underlying backend
be it block (iSCSI, Fiberchannel) or file (NFS). This kind of
surprises me because you would think that if your using shared storage
such a NetAPP Filer the IO is spread across all drives anyway so you
save mostly nothing on IO so the only thing I can think is that a
separate filesystem saves a small amount due to consolidation of all
fragments to one location.