Re: Which partitioning scheme gives best performance?
From: Dances With Crows (danSPANceswitTRAPhcrows_at_usa.net)
Date: 22 Jun 2004 01:25:50 GMT
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:03:29 GMT, Hactar staggered into the Black Sun
> I think I like reiserfs more. They both fix errors during fsck, but
> reiserfs doesn't _get_ errors. At least, that's my impression during
> limited use.
FWIW, I've been using ReiserFS for / , /var, and /home on my desktop for
2.5 years now. The only time I've had data corruption on a ReiserFS
partition was due to a bug with VIA chipsets and DMA in kernels 2.4.0
through 2.4.4--and reiserfsck fixed everything. YMMV.
>> And, as for your swap space allocation, do you really need to have 1
>> GB of swap space????
> FWIW, I have 768M RAM and 400M swap. I've never run out of swap
The old rule of "swap = 2*RAM" is no longer worth following, since RAM
szes have increased. If you're using a kernel from 2.4.5..2.4.10, you
may want to follow the rule anyway, since kernels in that range didn't
handle swap well and could fill up the swapspace for no real reason.
> Just remember, IDE disks are limited to 16(?) partitions.
Nope, 63. SCSI disks are limited to 16.
-- Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / mail: TRAP + SPAN don't belong http://www.brainbench.com / Hire me! -----------------------------/ http://crow202.dyndns.org/~mhgraham/resume