Should I plan a swap partition for Jaguar?

xqr74xqr74
Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
I have read that creating a large swap partition for 10.1.x can allow you to run many apps a bit smoother together. Does anyone know if this is true for Jag? I have just gotten my iBook700 and don't have anything to lose by partitioning (other than a few gigs of my 20) I often will run Illustrator, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, itunes, limewire, Eudora, and Netscape at the same time with my 384 megs of Ram. So far I have pretty pleased with my g3 os x performance but I would be willing to go through the trouble if I can be assured that it is worth it by someone with Jag experience. Perhaps Jag already has an improved swap routine? I have checked and have had as many as 12 swaps in /var/vm

BTW, does anyone have partitioning scheme ideas for my 20gig drive? I will still need 9.2 too.





thanks,

Chuck

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    No, creating a swap partition on the same drive does not improve performance. Only moving the partition to a different (and preferably faster) drive will give you better performance.



    In any case, you'd be better off just buying another stick of RAM. Real RAM always performs better than virtual memory.



    As for repartitioning, I always recommend users to create a single large partition -- NOT to split it up into various pieces. The only gains you get by partitioning is a different method of personally organizing your files (which can often be more confusing to users) and the ability to use disk utilities to repair one partition when booting from the other. Since you're going to have to reboot to repair anyway, I simply suggest booting from a CD to repair the disk.
  • Reply 2 of 5
    scott_h_phdscott_h_phd Posts: 448member
    Just to add ...



    When it comes to these issues there should be no difference between Jag and the other Mac OS Xes. As far as I know nothings changed at the core that would make a swap partition better or worse.
  • Reply 3 of 5
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    As long as Mr. Ph.D is talking out of his ass, I'll do the same.



    You don't need to bother with putting the swap file on a second HD, because the speed difference is slight to none.



    I tested my own installation of OS X.1 with the swap file either on the same partition, or on a second HD. No difference that I can tell. That's with 576 MB RAM on a Sawtooth 400. Maybe with a faster CPU I'd notice a difference? I don't know, like I said, I'm talking out of my ass. But since Mr. Ph.D. does it...well you figure it out.



    BTW, Scott, did you know that PHD stands for Piled Heavy and Deep? I should know, I'll have one myself in a few months. And you can bet your ass I'm not going to put it in my handle. Only idiots hide behind their degrees.
  • Reply 4 of 5
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Actually, the only case where moving the swap to another drive would help is when a) you have little memory and are constantly paging out and b) you are also constantly accessing the drive for files, such as with heavy graphic and video editing.



    So, JYD is right. The perceived performance boost is usually negligible.



    [ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 5
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    What little boost there would be should come from the fact that the partition (provided it is only used for swap and nothing more) will not become fragmented.



    If you have 256 MB of RAM it's probably not a problem.
Sign In or Register to comment.