|
Description
Many new users are confused when it comes to the installation of Ubuntu.
They didn't know they need a swap partition, and they're not sure what size it should be, and how to set it up.
They think its difficult to setup partitions and often don't understand how partitions work and the difference between primary and extended partitions.
Swap partitions have limitations, such as a constant size and can't be resized.
Using a swap file instead of a swap partition, would save users lots of hassle by not having them have to setup swap partitions, etc.
As a bonus, it would allow us to resize them anytime we want/need.
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Endperform wrote on the 29 Mar 08 at 12:54
| |
I've never seen a case where the swap has needed to be resized. Also, in most straight installations, the swap partition is set up automatically by using the automatic option in the installer, eliminating the need to worry about the partitions.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 29 Mar 08 at 13:06
| |
My laptop has 20GB... Swap file is more flexible
|
|
zooounds wrote on the 29 Mar 08 at 13:22
| |
Swappart is set up automatic
|
|
tomaszx wrote on the 29 Mar 08 at 13:27
|
swap partition is much hight speed from file. DONT USE FILE!
Vote -1
|
|
vexorian wrote on the 29 Mar 08 at 13:53
| |
Swap file is one of the worst windows features, you can't really use the partition where swap is used else you eventually break your performance, and users are not aware of that.
|
|
Eldmannen wrote on the 29 Mar 08 at 14:52
|
Not so. With a 2.4.x kernel swap files were slower than swap
partitions, but with the 2.6 kernel a swap file is just as fast as a swap partition.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/5/29/3
|
|
yzarc wrote on the 29 Mar 08 at 17:58
| |
if you don't know what is a partition just ask for help when you try to install a SO (any SO).
|
|
Robsie wrote on the 29 Mar 08 at 20:50
| |
I have a separate hard disk for my swap, I think more training for new users,, becauase as zooounds said it is practically automatic
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 30 Mar 08 at 00:33
|
Huh, robsie, English... do you speak it?
Everyone knows what a partition is. But the point is, give your userse options, if they want a swap file, let them. I prefer it because its more flexible then a partition
|
|
tenplus1 wrote on the 30 Mar 08 at 12:45
| |
Swap file partitions are easily setup by the installer, although an option to set Swapiness value in gconf-editor would be appreciated as well as a swap on/off switch...
|
|
steve196 wrote on the 31 Mar 08 at 21:00
| |
On tiny harddisks, or on harddisks, that are already partitioned with no room to spare, except for the already existing ext2 partition (and a user, who is not nuts enough, to start resizing partitions), a swap file is better. Obviously it is slower than the partition, but for most people, speed is not the main criterion.
|
|
mambazo wrote on the 19 May 08 at 02:10
| |
Yeah, swap files are no longer much slower than swap partitions. And they have a lot less hassle. On oldish machines, swap files are useful because you don't have to dedicated an entire partition to it. And newish machines (with lots of ram) hardly ever use the swap anyway, so having a swap file saves a lot of hassle.
|
|
JakeDog wrote on the 3 Jul 08 at 22:35
|
When imaging an Ubuntu installation for backup or for installation on a multiboot configured hard drive a swap file is easier. And it is just as fast as a partition since kernel 2.6.
So I just make one partition on the multiboot drive and restore the image to that partition and I'm done. No need to mess with creating a swap partition and then mounting that partition to the newly installed image.
If there is no performance advantage of a swap partition why would I want to clutter up my hard drive with more partitions to manage?
My vote: swap file (drop swap partition completely).
|
Post your comment
|
