Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Mon 24 Nov 2014, 04:22
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
Where is the most efficient place for a Linux swap partition
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 1 [7 Posts]  
Author Message
purple_ghost

Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 414

PostPosted: Mon 05 Nov 2007, 21:38    Post subject:  Where is the most efficient place for a Linux swap partition  

Usually the swap partition is the last one created. Does this mean it is on the outside part of the platter of the hard drive itself. In fact. If I use the inside of the drive for my Puppy save, or hard drive install. Then the arm must move to the far outside of the platters for a swap file. This hypothetically sounds inefficient.

I tried to create the first partition for the OS, or Puppy save file Then put the Linux Swap partition as the next partition. Remaining partitions are for data. What is the problem with this? Is this really more efficient?.


I was reading in a tech site that partitions that are smaller are more efficient. In their example. To create a small partition on the front of the drive for the Windows OS. Then put all of ones personal data in a second or more later partitions. How does this effect Puppy?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
PaulBx1

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2308
Location: Wyoming, USA

PostPosted: Mon 05 Nov 2007, 23:23    Post subject:  

I am kinda doubtful about the notion you can control physically where things go on a drive any more (like you could in the old days). The drive firmware may remap things anyway. It might work, I don't know. But there are so many unknowns controlling performance it is really hard to be sure of anything any more. If you want performance buy a lot of memory and don't bother with swap!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Flash
Official Dog Handler


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 11157
Location: Arizona USA

PostPosted: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 00:13    Post subject:  

I agree with Paul that more RAM is the better solution.

I have read, and it makes sense to me, that hard disk controllers always start writing at the outside of the disk and work in. Since the surface speed of the disk is fastest at the outside, the signal to noise will be highest and the sustained read speed will be fastest there. The first sector of the first partition, usually the boot sector in Windows, is located at the outside of the disk.

Having said all that, my guess is that you'd have to look very hard to see any difference in performance no matter where you put a swap partition.

Oddly, the data track on CDs and DVDs is a continuous spiral starting at the at the inner edge of the writable area and moving to the outside of the disk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Bruce B


Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 11131
Location: The Peoples Republic of California

PostPosted: Thu 08 Nov 2007, 16:41    Post subject:  

PaulBx1 wrote:
I am kinda doubtful about the notion you can control physically where things go on a drive any more (like you could in the old days). The drive firmware may remap things anyway. It might work, I don't know. But there are so many unknowns controlling performance it is really hard to be sure of anything any more. If you want performance buy a lot of memory and don't bother with swap!


Unfortunately, PaulBx1 has a valid point. Suppose at one point in time hda1 was for sure on the outer edge of the hard disk, which it was.

Things have changed so much that you cannot even guarantee that a partition will be a contiguous filesystem.

The upside is that today's drives are very fast compared to the predecessors.

I have 9 partitions on hda, the swap file is #9, the reason why is I have enough memory, it rarely gets used and #9 is easiest to delete or reformat for other purposes.

In answer to your question, I think the best place to put a swap partition is on a very fast second drive, that is, if you really expect extensive usage. It doesn't have to take up the entire drive, so you can use the rest of it for data storage and such.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
veronicathecow


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 535

PostPosted: Thu 08 Nov 2007, 16:56    Post subject:  

Hi, RAM is probably a million times faster than HDD, I always spend the little bit extra and get the RAM.
I love Puppy running in RAM. On a 1200 Athlon I can bring up a browser faster than a mate with 2GB of RMm, Windows XP and a Dual core gaziilion speed proc with RAID SATA blah blah blah! Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Bruce B


Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 11131
Location: The Peoples Republic of California

PostPosted: Thu 08 Nov 2007, 17:27    Post subject:  

veronicathecow wrote:
Hi, RAM is probably a million times faster than HDD, I always spend the little bit extra and get the RAM.
I love Puppy running in RAM. On a 1200 Athlon I can bring up a browser faster than a mate with 2GB of RMm, Windows XP and a Dual core gaziilion speed proc with RAID SATA blah blah blah! 8-)


And all this time I thought it was only 1000 times faster :)

I've got 2.5GB RAM, why so much? Well, I can make RAM drives galore and shmfs filesystems. Convert .wav to .mp3 in record time and visa-versa.

Least I mention compile cds and iso files fast and without the least bit of disk wear or tear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
veronicathecow


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 535

PostPosted: Thu 08 Nov 2007, 18:44    Post subject:  

Hi Bruce B, well I was working it out roughly. Using some real world figures say 10ms seek time for average HDD. and
DDR-400 at 5 ns access time I make that more like
10ms/5ns = 2 million times faster for inital grabbing of data approx.
(Hopefully my decimals are in the right place (Unlike the Hubble mirror Cool

If anyone is interested there is an excellent article on Filesystem speeds here but lost it now. Anyway it boils down to EX2 or EX3 are the best.

Cheers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 1 [7 Posts]  
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0581s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0040s) ][ GZIP on ]