Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Swap partition size' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Swap partition size
Authored by: lerici on Jun 24, '07 07:42:19PM

I agree with Justin's statement.

UFS IS going to be SAFER for any partition where there are a lot of dynamic changes ... such as spool swap and tmp. Just for the reasons he gave.

In order to achieve "higher performance" hfs+ apparently gives up a great deal of stability. As as has been shown in some of the recent algorithms tomes the larger the tree the less it matters whether it is "organized" a certain way or not. In point of fact the more random it is "layered" the better. So as partitions grow in size becoming huge it may be that the performance gains achieved with hfs will become less and less.

Bottom line: Random good, complex trees may be bad.



[ Reply to This | # ]