On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 08:23:16PM +0100, Jack Malmostoso wrote: > That's something I haven't really understood. > Let's say one of my disks crashes: the system keeps alive just on the > second disk as long as I keep it up. But let's assume I haven't RAIDed the > swap: it would be enough a reboot to make things back to normal (I mean > provisionaly on just one disk), right?
Sure, but you have to reboot, and you just lost anything that was happening when the disk failed. To me, if you do raid at all, then you put swap on raid. I imagine it is quite possible to corrupt the data if the system can't access half of swap and just crashes. Besides with the price of ram, a system shouldn't normally be swapping anyhow, so any minimal performance difference isn't worth considering. Neither is the cost of disk space for doing raid for swap. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
