Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:08:26 -0400:
> Duncan wrote: >> >> But you're correct about swap[...] at the same priority >> > Note that in such a situation if either disk fails you're likely to end > up with a panic when your swap device isn't accessible. If uptime is a > concern mirrored swap is better (but slower). Correct. However, I'm not too worried about a crash. In fact, I don't even have a UPS here, tho it's on my list again now that I switched to LCDs from CRTs. > If the bulk of your data is mirrored you'll get everything back on > reboot after removing the bad drive. However, you will likely lose > anything in memory. That's the plan. As long as I don't lose the data on the RAID-6 (and RAID-1, to boot with), I'm fine. I don't have a spare drive to repair to either, tho I could buy one relatively quickly if necessary. But I did deliberately choose RAID-6 with double redundancy over RAID-5 with single redundancy and a "hot-spare". Of course, if three of the four go out before I can get at least one repaired, I'm still SOL, but that's a chance I'm willing to take, and a serious improvement over the backup-copy-on-a-different-partition-on-the- same-spindle scheme I was using before. It's only my hobby, after all, not holding a month or year's income dependency, and if I had that many drives die at once, chances are I'd have bigger problems, and would be looking at buying a whole new computer, and possibly a whole new house, anyway. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
