Having the swap partition on SSDs would be the wrong thing to do, SSDs have a limited write life, thus what you want is data that rarely changes but is highly accessed. My understanding of a swap partition is that data is swapped in and out thus I would expect a high percentage of writes.
Senior Software Engineer
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hans Boldt
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Explaining single level store to non i people
Don't know if it helps this conversation at all but Steve Will just
blogged about SLS:
Hmmm, I wonder if he was reading this thread! As "IBM i Chief Architect", of course Steve Will is going to defend SLS!
Let's look at his two arguments: First, he looks at the ease of managing disks on the iSeries. I think he's making somewhat of a strawman argument here. Of course, disk management on IBM's mainframe systems is a real pain in comparison. But first, the same isn't necessarily true on other operating systems. And second, if you've spent 7 or 8 figures in your machine room, you can afford the necessary operators. (Contrary to all the obits over the years, there's still life in the z/Architecture!)
Second, he discusses how the iSeries automatically balances where things are stored on disk based on the relative speeds of the storage devices, looking at solid-state drives in particular. Sure, that's way cool! On the other hand, on a conventional O/S environment, I think I'd simply put the swap partition on the SSD device and enjoy the same performance benefit.
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l