home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!cs4w+
- From: cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc
- Subject: Re: Swapfile compression
- Message-ID: <Yf_vomm00WBNE2g3hm@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Date: 13 Dec 92 12:46:10 GMT
- Article-I.D.: andrew.Yf_vomm00WBNE2g3hm
- Organization: Senior, Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
- Lines: 30
- In-Reply-To: <1992Dec10.224206.1776@seer.demon.co.uk>
-
- Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.next.misc: 10-Dec-92 Re: Swapfile
- compression by Paul Lynch@seer.demon.co
- > It's not *extra* diskspace (if I read your intention correctly).
- > swapfile.front is just a view onto swapfile; the only file that occupies
- > real disk space is swapfile.
-
- Correct.
-
- > Apart from that, I'd would also like to know what good turning it on will
- > do. I find it hard to be convinced that compressing (which takes time) a
- > swapfile (which MUST be fast) is a good idea.
-
- The idea is that it's faster for the CPU to compress and then write out
- a smaller amount of data than it it to simply write out uncompressed
- data. There's a tradeoff made between CPU usage and disk I/O.
-
- NeXT has set up the defaults so that machines that will do a lot of
- swapping (low memory machines), and thus be I/O bound, will use swapfile
- compression to shift some of the burden over to the CPU. Machines with
- more memory will not swap as much, and are not as I/O bound, so turning
- on the swapfile compression may not help as much, or may actually
- decrease overall performance.
-
- -Chuck
-
- +------------------------------------------+ "Foosh. Aaughh!!"
- | Charles William Swiger -- CMU...crunch! | "Foosh. Aauuggghh!!"
- | AMS & normal mail: cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu | "Cold spray deodorant...."
- | NeXTmail: chuck@mon.slip.andrew.cmu.edu |
- +------------------------------------------+ -- Opus, Bloom County [RIP]
-