Hm,
I understand the necessary of redundancy; but isn't it the same if you do a swapoff -a
or swap-disks dies on a system?
What I have in mind is the thing, that the system should not swap at all, so that it
is necessary to have as much memory (RAM) as possible.
Greetings, Dietmar
>----- Urspr�ngliche Nachricht -----
>Absender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Betreff: Re: Swap on raid
>Empf�nger: Dietmar Stein
>Kopie-Empf�nger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Datum: 09. Mai 1999 21:09
>
> On Sun, 9 May 1999, Dietmar Stein wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> A question in between: what sense does it make to have the swap onto
> raid?
>
> I think, that moment your machine starts swapping you�ll get some
> performance problems which wouldn't be solved by using "raid-swap"
> instead of swap on a single disk or whatever. Think of the meaning of
> swap (increasing physical memory for security not for daily work).
>
> Greetings, Dietmar
>
> Swap on raid isn't for performance, it's for reduncany. If a disk
> with a swap partition goes down, the system goes down. With swap on
> raid, you're protected.
>
> We know raid1 works, but would swap on raid5? i hope it would, as
> raid5 is less wasteful of disk space than raid1.
>
> regards,
> --
> Paul Jakma
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hibernia.clubi.ie
> PGP5 key: http://www.clubi.ie/jakma/publickey.txt
> -------------------------------------------
> Fortune:
> A straw vote only shows which way the hot air blows.
> -- O'Henry
>
>
