Very Computer

I'm curious --

Recently, with 9gig+ disks becoming more and more prevalent,
when I install Solaris 2.6 or 7, I'm just creating a root
file system (ie, /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0), and a file system for
the swap space (ie, /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s1).

Since these machines frequently suffer the "scorched earth" policy,
I don't have to worry about users filling up "/var" or "/opt", etc.,
before it's time for a reinstall. Much nicer.

I wondering, though, what the performance ramifications would
be if I went one step further, and didn't even create a "swap"
filesystem, but just used the "mkfile" command, to create
a 1 gig, or so, swapfile after installation, adding it to
/etc/vfstab?

It's certainly no trouble to give swap its own slice, but is
it necessary/preferable?

Thanks!

Steve

Quote:> Recently, with 9gig+ disks becoming more and more prevalent,
> when I install Solaris 2.6 or 7, I'm just creating a root
> file system (ie, /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0), and a file system for
> the swap space (ie, /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s1).

> Since these machines frequently suffer the "scorched earth" policy,
> I don't have to worry about users filling up "/var" or "/opt", etc.,
> before it's time for a reinstall. Much nicer.

Quote:> I wondering, though, what the performance ramifications would
> be if I went one step further, and didn't even create a "swap"
> filesystem, but just used the "mkfile" command, to create
> a 1 gig, or so, swapfile after installation, adding it to
> /etc/vfstab?

Personally, I'd stick with your current partitioning scheme,
although there's nothing wrong with having an additional swap
file on another disk (having another swap file on the same disk
makes no sense from a performance point of view).

HTH,

--
Rich Teer

NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.

The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence.  (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)

If it ain't analogue, it ain't music.

Voice: +1 (250) 763-6205
WWW: www.rite-group.com

I personally would rather have a slice rather than
a swapfile, if at all possible.  You still can't make
a swap partition larger than 2gb on a single slice,
right?  Or is there a patch to fix this?

: Just out of curiosity, what's a scroched earth policy?

That's scorched -- leave nothing standing. :)
It's just a silly term I picked up for the policy of completely
erasing systems or configurations, instead of trying to figure
out what state a machine is in....Start completely fresh.

: Personally, I'd stick with your current partitioning scheme,
: although there's nothing wrong with having an additional swap
: file on another disk (having another swap file on the same disk
: makes no sense from a performance point of view).

Yup. That seems to be the consensus. Thanks to all.

it is not  necessary/preferable to use a specefic slice
it is a possibility

of course for management purpose it is better to use a slice and not
file

also it is impossivble to calculate today the swap sapce for a machine
for the next 5y .... so when needed ad a file or a slice as a swap
space/file

regards wim de preter

Quote:> That's scorched -- leave nothing standing. :)
> It's just a silly term I picked up for the policy of completely
> erasing systems or configurations, instead of trying to figure
> out what state a machine is in....Start completely fresh.

--
Rich Teer

NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.

The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence.  (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)

If it ain't analogue, it ain't music.

Voice: +1 (250) 763-6205
WWW: www.rite-group.com