LFS actually on OLD machine!

Eric Pratt pratte at ecn.purdue.edu
Thu Feb 12 22:13:48 PST 2004


On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 tbdewey at earthlink.net wrote:

> This is great!  Finally have LFS 5.0 installed on my Pentium 200. It
> boots and reboots and has colors and everything.  Starting BLFS
> today.
>
> One question.  For various reasons I moved LFS from my primary
> HD to my secondary, an old 3.2GB hd.  Originally I was using the
> same swap partition as the host was.  Now the kernel is on one
> drive, and the swap is on the other drive.  Would I benefit from
> having them both on the same drive, or does it really matter?
>
> Thanks alot
>
> tom

Congrats on the successful build!

Well, this is actually a hardware question more than a Linux question.
In my opinion, having swap on it's own hard drive that is not shared by
any other partitions at all would be the fastest.  The reason I say this
is that when the CPU is accessing the swap, if another partition is being
accessed on that same hard drive at the same time, you will see a decrease
in swap performance.  However, it is not usually not economically feasible
for home machines and workstations to do this.

The benefit of having them on the same drive is that if you take your
drive out and put it in another identical hardware setup that does not
have a second drive, you will have a self-contained system on one HD.
Without it, you would be hurting.  If you have no need to do this, then
having swap on another drive, especially if it is the fastest and least
used drive in the system, is the best for performance second to RAID.

In the end, it really doesn't matter as long as you have a reasonably
sized swap partition in your system and swap performance is not critical
to you.

Eric



More information about the lfs-support mailing list