14 Nov
2009
14 Nov
'09
9:36 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Steven Edwards <winehacker(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
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:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Alex
Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca>
wrote:
>> 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).
Sorry if the point of the question is not clear. In a RAID/NAS/SAN
Frankly, the dimension of your case is beyond my experience.
All I can think of is the usual issue:
A separate filesys, or rather a separate *drive*, for swap reduce
butterfly-seeking for the read-write arm in the drive, because the
drive don't have to satisfy regular IO alongside page swapping.
This makes the swapping faster and more efficient.
I guess this applies even if you've got local striped raid volumes,
or you swap over a fiber, because in the end it all comes down
on a harddisk (or several).
Best Regards // Love
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.
Ping? Nobody? So no idea why a separate dedicate virtual drive is
recommended for the pagefile.sys?