> >Perhaphs this is what should be done as the default `simple'
> >installation (i.e. one file system, no swap space and swap to a file,
> >sick but simple ... :-).  With a unified VM/FS cache the overhead might
> >even be minimal.  If, however, the overhead was significant then I think
> >that swapping to a raw device would be a prefered choice.
> 
> A while ago I attended a tutorial by Dr. McKusick and took the
> opportunity of putting the question of raw disk vs fs swapping to him.
> His basic response was that the difference between the two methods was
> well below the noise threshold of all the other things going on in the
> kernel so the question was moot.

The other thing you get is the educational benefit of Windoze users
maybe understanding the differnence between "temporary" and
"permanent" swap files :)

I think this is a great idea, but only if the tools are there to
shrink and grow this file at will...

Regards,
-- 
Peter Galbavy					work: peter@demon.net
Wonderland					rest: peter@wonderland.org
						play: http://www.wonderland.org/
"The 'net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore