Partitioning; cloning Puppy,

[Flash]

....Just talking shop here. If you anticipate a lot of swap partition activity, my idea is to put the swap partition on another drive of equal or greater speed, if you have one.

The reason why is the read write heads have to move all over the place when doing a lot of swapping and reading and writing on the operating system partition also.

If the swap partition is on another drive the heads (and the entire drive) can stay focused on the task at hand which is reading and writing the swap partition.....

Hmm, if you happen to have a fast hard drive available, that's a good idea. But, if you have to buy it, wouldn't a better choice be to buy more RAM instead of another hard drive?

(Assuming your computer can handle more RAM,) one Gig of RAM is comparable in cost to the cheapest hard drive, these days, and would beat even the fastest hard drive used for swap (virtual RAM) memory. It is also far more rugged, reliable, smaller and lighter. There seems to be a puzzling lack of data on RAM power consumption, but, based on how hot a 1GB stick of 400 MHz DDR RAM gets, compared to how much heat my hard drive puts out, I'm pretty sure that 1GB of any kind of RAM would use a good deal less power than a fast hard drive.

Not to knock your idea, just to point out some other considerations.

[Bruce B]

I'm not trying to argue using hard drives in place of RAM -sorry you if thought I was.

Nor was I suggesting 'buying' a new hard drive - sorry if you thought so - nor do I have any idea how the idea of buying one came up as it was clearly qualified as follows

...Just talking shop here. If you anticipate a lot of swap partition activity, my idea is to put the swap partition on another drive of equal or greater speed, if you have one.

The very idea of using a different hard drive was clearly qualified under two IF conditions

IF condition one - if you anticipate a lot of swap activity
IF condition two - if you already have another hard drive

Nothing else has any meaning IF both the IF conditions are not met does it?

In response to this:

> Hmm, if you happen to have a fast hard drive available, that's a good idea. But, if you have to buy it, wouldn't a better choice be to buy more RAM instead of another hard drive?

I say Hmm, I already qualified the conditions. As far as an argument regarding which is the best - RAM or swap partitions acting to supplement physical RAM - there is not much to dicuss. You know the answer and so do I.

[Bruce B]

(Assuming your computer can handle more RAM,) one Gig of RAM is comparable in cost to the cheapest hard drive, these days, and would beat even the fastest hard drive used for swap (virtual RAM) memory. It is also far more rugged, reliable, smaller and lighter. There seems to be a puzzling lack of data on RAM power consumption, but, based on how hot a 1GB stick of 400 MHz DDR RAM gets, compared to how much heat my hard drive puts out, I'm pretty sure that 1GB of any kind of RAM would use a good deal less power than a fast hard drive.

Not to knock your idea, just to point out some other considerations.

Here are my considerations of your considerations:

My post was to germanpup concernng his particular computer, which he described as a P1 166 MHZ w/ 40 MB RAM

What I actually assume is his computer doesn't even have the support for the kind of ram you reference.

I assume he probably has something like the obsolete 72 pin RAM chips, or something along those lines, which I don't think are even easy to come by any more.

[Germanpup]

well guys the swapping I mentioned occurred after regularly booting up from the cd. my conclusion to this was in case of low RAM do a type2 install. type 1 or CDROM bootup only make sense if RAM is equal to 128 MB or more.

Wake the unwakable!