[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Hibernate with LVM Swap

On Monday 12 June 2006 07:20pm, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 16:15 -0600, Lamont R. Peterson wrote:
> > How do you mean?
> 4 primary plus a limited number within an Extended partition.  LVM has
> MUCH more space in this regard.


So, Peter, are you saying that using up 3 partitions is so bad compared to 2 
that we should be concerned about it?

Sorry, this is a non-starter argument to me.

I'm saying that LVM has several very worthwhile benefits and that non of them 
matter when it comes to swap and that since LVM doesn't benefit swap, it 
doesn't make sense to put swap on LVM.

The only exception I see is the example of needing 30GB of RAM to do some big, 
one-time operation.  In that case, sure, create an extra swap LV and use it, 
removing it when you're done.  But the key concept in that scenario 
is "one-time".  If it's an ongoing need, then you (should|need to) get more 
RAM or dedicate a high-speed drive (or two or three or ...) to just swap.

Some talked about how the capability of LVM to spread an LV over several PVs 
would give performance benefits to swap.  I don't completely agree, due to 
the size of a PE vs. the size of a memory page.  To get that benefit, you 
should be using RAID0 (software or hardware), and I only say RAID0 because we 
don't care what's on swap.

Anyway, sorry for the earlier confusion.
Lamont R. Peterson <lamont gurulabs com>
Senior Instructor
Guru Labs, L.C. [ http://www.GuruLabs.com/ ]
GPG Key fingerprint: F98C E31A 5C4C 834A BCAB  8CB3 F980 6C97 DC0D D409

Attachment: pgpIZB0sn9WTG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]