Re: Which partitioning scheme gives best performance?
From: Dances With Crows (danSPANceswitTRAPhcrows_at_usa.net)
Date: 06/22/04
- Next message: Floyd L. Davidson: "Re: Which partitioning scheme gives best performance?"
- Previous message: Ming He: "Re: Which partitioning scheme gives best performance?"
- In reply to: Floyd L. Davidson: "Re: Which partitioning scheme gives best performance?"
- Next in thread: Johan Kullstam: "Re: Which partitioning scheme gives best performance?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 22 Jun 2004 18:01:39 GMT
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:35:15 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson staggered into the
Black Sun and said:
> Dances With Crows <danSPANceswitTRAPhcrows@usa.net> wrote:
>>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
> But data corruption is *not* a characteristic of any type of
> filesystem under normal circumstances. I don't see that as a
> significant difference between ext3 and ReiserFS.
The OP thought that ReiserFS had a higher chance of corrupting data than
ext3 did. I was trying to say "no, it doesn't, at least not IME."
>>The old rule of "swap = 2*RAM" is no longer worth following, since RAM
> That "old rule" has *never* applied to Linux.
>>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
> But adding swap space is *not* going to help. The only solution
> is upgrading to a kernel that isn't bug ridden.
For kernels between 2.4.5 and 2.4.9, pages in RAM could be duplicated in
swap for no real reason. So if your swap was < 2*RAM, you'd eventually
fill up your swapspace and starting a memory-hungry app would invoke the
OOM killer. I had that happen to me many times when I was using those
kernels.
The best solution is, of course, to use a newer kernel that doesn't have
this problem, but there are people out there who can't/won't upgrade
their kernels for various reasons (proprietary apps, fear, etcetera.)
>>> Just remember, IDE disks are limited to 16(?) partitions.
>>Nope, 63. SCSI disks are limited to 16.
> What difference does it make with a 70 Gb disk? 16 is plenty
16 is certainly plenty, but IDE disks are not limited to 16 partitions
and the OP should know that.
-- 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
- Next message: Floyd L. Davidson: "Re: Which partitioning scheme gives best performance?"
- Previous message: Ming He: "Re: Which partitioning scheme gives best performance?"
- In reply to: Floyd L. Davidson: "Re: Which partitioning scheme gives best performance?"
- Next in thread: Johan Kullstam: "Re: Which partitioning scheme gives best performance?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
