Swap File Optimizations?

Posted by Cliff on Tuesday March 23, 2004 @06:34PM from the coaxing-out-more-speed-via-organization dept.

fastswap asks: "I've got a pretty standard computer with reasonably fast drives. I've got an old 2GB-but-fast drive, and a spare channel on the motherboard. Does it make sense to install the 2GB drive on its own controller and use it for a dedicated, fixed swap file? I figure if the computer's using the swap file, then in the current setup with the swap file on the primary controller, then it's contributing to hard drive thrash exactly when one doesn't want it to (i.e. when the machine needs the swap file). If it is better to have a dedicated swap file on its own controller, is the same true for other operating systems with similar approaches to virtual memory? Since drive space is so cheap now, should the swap file be fixed size anyway rather than letting Windows suddenly get the urge to resize the thing?"

2 of 177 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Erm by Qwaniton · 2004-03-23 20:10 · Score: -1, Flamebait

GNU/Linux uses swap partitions, dumbfuck.
Best Optimisation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-23 21:24 · Score: -1, Flamebait

The single best optimisation you can make on your system is to delete Windows and install a proper operating system that has been designed and implemented by competent software engineers.
However, yes, having it on a dedicated drive on its own controller will help immensely.
If your machine is swapping that much that it noticeably slows down in regular use, you should consider installing more RAM. My humble Slackware box at home has 512MB RAM and rarely, if ever, has to wait for stuff to get swapped back in, because of Lunux's clever caching algorithms, and the fact that I don't run anything bigger than a web browser. Yes, nowadays a web browser is probably the most bloated, resource-hungry piece of code you'll ever run. In days of yore it was compilers, then word processors....