Ok so what is my point then? With there would be no meaning of making any
compression on the swap files as there would be enough speed in these new
harddrives to kick ass without any compression.
(disclamer: sorry for being an bit unclear but im pretty tired right now
and i might have gotten some things wrong.)
If someone would want more info i might dig the original message out from
the others and send his way or perhaps even to the list.
On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, MOLNAR Ingo wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Marty Leisner wrote:
> >
> > > Any hard numbers on cpu time versus disk wait? Also how much
> > > compression will be achieved...
> >
> > Disk transfer time is absolutely minimal, especially when
> > compared to disk seek time...
> > And disk seek time isn't at all affected by swap compression.
> > If you want swap performance, clustering and read-ahead are
> > the way to go.
>
> it is affecting seek times .. a 2-times compression thing means the size
> of the swap area is halved as well, thus average seeks are halved as well.
> (if you use a separate swap device and swap fragmentation isnt too high,
> ie. the swap set is a ~1.0 dimensional fractal ;)
>
> -- mingo
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
>
-------------------------------------------
http://blueflux.home.ml.org
-------------------------------------------
<Bill_Gates> Where do you want to go today?
<Phase_5> Where do go tomorrow?
<BlueFlux> Where were you yesterday?!?!
-------------------------------------------
-BlueFlux
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu