SEO

First, Force CPU-56, Solaris 8, 512 MBytes memory, 4 GBytes swap.

Initially we were running a 9 GByte disk with partitions for
"/", "/usr", "/opt", and "/var". Pretty standard so far. When
we upgraded from Solaris 2.8 we reworked this to put everything
in a single partition. This made life a little easier with backups
and replicating the disk. So effectively we split the disk so
that partition 0 (/) was ~5 GBytes and partition 1 (swap) was
4 GBytes.

But now we are increasing the size of the disks and going to disks
that are 50 to 70 GBytes in size. Is there any performance hit if
I simply use the same setup with the exception that partition 0
would be the entire disk, minus space for swap? Or is it better
to expand to 3 partitions with partition 0 at ~5 GBytes, partition 1
at 4 Gbytes and then partition 3 taking up the rest of the disk?

Does the position of the swap area on a disk cause any performance
problems? There shouldn't be a lot of activity in swap, so I'm thinking
that it won't matter, but I would like some input from other admins.

The system will be running pretty much stand alone. Once the main
program is loaded the bulk of the system activity is over the VME
bus, talking to a group of Mercury processors.

--
Martin E. Meserve
k7mem@myrealbox.com
http://www.k7mem.150m.com

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:24:20 -0700, K7MEM <k7mem@myrealbox.com> wrote:

>
>First, Force CPU-56, Solaris 8, 512 MBytes memory, 4 GBytes swap.
>
>Initially we were running a 9 GByte disk with partitions for
>"/", "/usr", "/opt", and "/var". Pretty standard so far. When
>we upgraded from Solaris 2.8 we reworked this to put everything
>in a single partition. This made life a little easier with backups
>and replicating the disk. So effectively we split the disk so
>that partition 0 (/) was ~5 GBytes and partition 1 (swap) was
>4 GBytes.
>
>But now we are increasing the size of the disks and going to disks
>that are 50 to 70 GBytes in size. Is there any performance hit if
>I simply use the same setup with the exception that partition 0
>would be the entire disk, minus space for swap? Or is it better
>to expand to 3 partitions with partition 0 at ~5 GBytes, partition 1
>at 4 Gbytes and then partition 3 taking up the rest of the disk?

I'm not aware of any performance advantage to be gained by
partitioning a single disk. You still have a single disk arm.

>Does the position of the swap area on a disk cause any performance
>problems? There shouldn't be a lot of activity in swap, so I'm thinking
>that it won't matter, but I would like some input from other admins.

By placing the swap partition on the faster part of the disk (the
outside edge) you will gain some performance. However I would suggest
that due to the high expected use of swap that you, if possible, move
this to a separate disk dedicated solely to swap. Perhaps the 9GB disk
you're replacing could be used.

Josh

Josh McKee wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:24:20 -0700, K7MEM <k7mem@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>First, Force CPU-56, Solaris 8, 512 MBytes memory, 4 GBytes swap.
>>
>>Initially we were running a 9 GByte disk with partitions for
>>"/", "/usr", "/opt", and "/var". Pretty standard so far. When
>>we upgraded from Solaris 2.8 we reworked this to put everything
>>in a single partition. This made life a little easier with backups
>>and replicating the disk. So effectively we split the disk so
>>that partition 0 (/) was ~5 GBytes and partition 1 (swap) was
>>4 GBytes.
>>
>>But now we are increasing the size of the disks and going to disks
>>that are 50 to 70 GBytes in size. Is there any performance hit if
>>I simply use the same setup with the exception that partition 0
>>would be the entire disk, minus space for swap? Or is it better
>>to expand to 3 partitions with partition 0 at ~5 GBytes, partition 1
>>at 4 Gbytes and then partition 3 taking up the rest of the disk?
>
>
> I'm not aware of any performance advantage to be gained by
> partitioning a single disk. You still have a single disk arm.
>
>
>>Does the position of the swap area on a disk cause any performance
>>problems? There shouldn't be a lot of activity in swap, so I'm thinking
>>that it won't matter, but I would like some input from other admins.
>
>
> By placing the swap partition on the faster part of the disk (the
> outside edge) you will gain some performance. However I would suggest
> that due to the high expected use of swap that you, if possible, move
> this to a separate disk dedicated solely to swap. Perhaps the 9GB disk
> you're replacing could be used.
>
> Josh

You should also consider making a duplicate root partition for using
live-upgrade.

alan.
--
Alan Hargreaves - http://blogs.sun.com/tpenta
Senior Technical Support Specialist/VOSJEC Engineer
Product Technical Support (APAC)
Sun Microsystems

Josh McKee wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:24:20 -0700, K7MEM <k7mem@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>First, Force CPU-56, Solaris 8, 512 MBytes memory, 4 GBytes swap.
>>
>>Initially we were running a 9 GByte disk with partitions for
>>"/", "/usr", "/opt", and "/var". Pretty standard so far. When
>>we upgraded from Solaris 2.8 we reworked this to put everything
>>in a single partition. This made life a little easier with backups
>>and replicating the disk. So effectively we split the disk so
>>that partition 0 (/) was ~5 GBytes and partition 1 (swap) was
>>4 GBytes.
>>
>>But now we are increasing the size of the disks and going to disks
>>that are 50 to 70 GBytes in size. Is there any performance hit if
>>I simply use the same setup with the exception that partition 0
>>would be the entire disk, minus space for swap? Or is it better
>>to expand to 3 partitions with partition 0 at ~5 GBytes, partition 1
>>at 4 Gbytes and then partition 3 taking up the rest of the disk?
>
>
> I'm not aware of any performance advantage to be gained by
> partitioning a single disk. You still have a single disk arm.
>
>
>>Does the position of the swap area on a disk cause any performance
>>problems? There shouldn't be a lot of activity in swap, so I'm thinking
>>that it won't matter, but I would like some input from other admins.
>
>
> By placing the swap partition on the faster part of the disk (the
> outside edge) you will gain some performance. However I would suggest
> that due to the high expected use of swap that you, if possible, move
> this to a separate disk dedicated solely to swap. Perhaps the 9GB disk
> you're replacing could be used.
>
> Josh

Thanks for the input Josh. I didn't think there would be much gain
using a single disk unless I was dealing with swap alot.Having
another disk in this case is not an option. The 9GB disk is a large,
by todays standards, old Seagate and the new drive is a little
notebook disk drive. The next generation disk will be one that
mounts directly on the Force CPU-56. The whole chassis needs to
fly and any weight savings is a plus.

Thanks again.
--
Martin E. Meserve
k7mem@myrealbox.com
http://www.k7mem.150m.com

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:51:47 -0700, K7MEM <k7mem@myrealbox.com> wrote:

>Josh McKee wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:24:20 -0700, K7MEM <k7mem@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>First, Force CPU-56, Solaris 8, 512 MBytes memory, 4 GBytes swap.
>>>
>>>Initially we were running a 9 GByte disk with partitions for
>>>"/", "/usr", "/opt", and "/var". Pretty standard so far. When
>>>we upgraded from Solaris 2.8 we reworked this to put everything
>>>in a single partition. This made life a little easier with backups
>>>and replicating the disk. So effectively we split the disk so
>>>that partition 0 (/) was ~5 GBytes and partition 1 (swap) was
>>>4 GBytes.
>>>
>>>But now we are increasing the size of the disks and going to disks
>>>that are 50 to 70 GBytes in size. Is there any performance hit if
>>>I simply use the same setup with the exception that partition 0
>>>would be the entire disk, minus space for swap? Or is it better
>>>to expand to 3 partitions with partition 0 at ~5 GBytes, partition 1
>>>at 4 Gbytes and then partition 3 taking up the rest of the disk?
>>
>>
>> I'm not aware of any performance advantage to be gained by
>> partitioning a single disk. You still have a single disk arm.
>>
>>
>>>Does the position of the swap area on a disk cause any performance
>>>problems? There shouldn't be a lot of activity in swap, so I'm thinking
>>>that it won't matter, but I would like some input from other admins.
>>
>>
>> By placing the swap partition on the faster part of the disk (the
>> outside edge) you will gain some performance. However I would suggest
>> that due to the high expected use of swap that you, if possible, move
>> this to a separate disk dedicated solely to swap. Perhaps the 9GB disk
>> you're replacing could be used.
>>
>> Josh
>
>Thanks for the input Josh.

You're welcome. Does the 9GB disk need a new home?

Josh

>I didn't think there would be much gain
>using a single disk unless I was dealing with swap alot.Having
>another disk in this case is not an option. The 9GB disk is a large,
>by todays standards, old Seagate and the new drive is a little
>notebook disk drive. The next generation disk will be one that
>mounts directly on the Force CPU-56. The whole chassis needs to
>fly and any weight savings is a plus.
>
>Thanks again.