Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 22:13:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> To: hamellr@dsinw.com (rick hamell) Cc: cjclark@home.com, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Performance Question Message-ID: <199904200213.WAA28807@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.990419181303.2445A-100000@dsinw.com> from rick hamell at "Apr 19, 99 06:26:54 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
rick hamell wrote, > > > drives in such a role. So my question is, on an all IDE system, how > > much of a performance increase does one get by moving the swap from a > > partition on the same drive that contains the OS and user data to a > > separate, dedicated swap drive? Does the performance depend > > IMHO, probally enough to make it a worthwhile project. May I ask why you believe that? > > (significantly) on the way the IDE devices are configured (what is > > primary/secondary or master/slave)? > > Total performace depends on a few things. If you can try to make > the drive master on it's own IDE cable, there will be a slight increase > in performace this way. Maxtor, certain Seagate Models and most Conner > drives really prefer to be Master, they could not work at all, especially > paired with another. I.e, never ever put a Seagate as a slave to a Maxtor > drive. The vast majority of the drives are Western Digital 'Caviars,' and I saw a couple of Quantums. Does that make a difference? Plus, pretty much every machine will have an IDE CDROM as well. -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@home.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904200213.WAA28807>