From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Barry K. Nathan" Subject: Re: [RFC] VM: I have a dream... Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:20:16 -0800 Message-ID: <986ed62e0601230020g19dfe825r1b81a2bed411c1fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <200601212108.41269.a1426z@gawab.com> <986ed62e0601221155x6a57e353vf14db02cc219c09@mail.gmail.com> <200601222346.24781.chase.venters@clientec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Michael Loftis , Al Boldi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from xproxy.gmail.com ([66.249.82.201]:7957 "EHLO xproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751422AbWAWIUS convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 03:20:18 -0500 Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id s14so614323wxc for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:20:18 -0800 (PST) To: Chase Venters In-Reply-To: <200601222346.24781.chase.venters@clientec.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 1/22/06, Chase Venters wrote: > Just as a curiosity... does anyone have any guesses as to the runtime > performance cost of hosting one or more swap files (which thanks to on demand > creation and growth are presumably built of blocks scattered around the disk) > versus having one or more simple contiguous swap partitions? > > I think it's probably a given that swap partitions are better; I'm just > curious how much better they might actually be. If you google "mac os x swap partition", you'll find benchmarks from several years ago. (Although, those benchmarks are with a partition dedicated to the dynamically created swap files. It does more or less ensure that the files are contiguous though.) Mac OS X was *much* more of a dog back then, in terms of performance, so I don't know how relevant those benchmarks are nowadays, but it might be a starting point for answering your question. -- -Barry K. Nathan