On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Steven Edwards winehacker@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Steven Edwards winehacker@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Steven Edwards winehacker@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca
wrote:
- 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
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?
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