[badtz]

If one had two drives (exactly the same) on two separate channels .....

would it benefit to put the swap file on the 2nd drive?

specifically: would it benefit when doing intensive I/O applications like Audio / Video Editing?

[SMacTech]

Yes it would, if you don't have enough physical memory and you are swapping out VM all the time.

On our Windows and Linux servers, the swap files are either spread across multiple drives which don't have the OS or the data being accessed and for Linux, its own partition on non OS and data drives.

[badtz]

does having the swap file elsewhere only greatly benefit server [multi-user] environments? [low size data, but multiple I/O]

or does it also benefit where there's a lot of sequential data being pushed?

Would it be a good idea to put the OS on one partition, and the swap AND applications on another?

OR

Put the OS and APPS on one drive, and the swap by itself on another?

[Maflynn]

Originally posted by badtz:
Put the OS and APPS on one drive, and the swap by itself on another?

Well I'm assuming your confining your question to OSX. I'd say the difference is minimal. How often does the system access the application folder. You need to differentiate between partition and drives. You gain the speed by using different drives on different channels. You buy nothing if you partition a single drive. The data being accessed still has a single pipeline to get through.


Mike

[yukon]

Most UNIXes like their swap space on another partition, I've wondered about what difference it could possibly make for performance, all I come up with is reliability issues- writes to another file system, you don't need to journal swap, and it allows for security/seperation....putting /usr and /home on other partitions is the security thing....just try OpenBSD, it defaults to 5 or 7 partitions or so (I just used a couple, I'm bad at guessing necessary sizes), kinda nice making /sbin write protected though.