On Sunday 21 January 2007 19:25, Pascal Bleser wrote: > S Glasoe wrote: > ... > > > One nit to pick also. Why put /swap on the RAID array? I'd advocate > > having two separate non-RAID /swap files on the bare metal. But then, > > that's just me. /swap is slow enough compared to main memory but then > > you also want to write that transient data again to another drive and > > slow the rest of the system down, again? Sure modern systems are fast > > but I look at it as unneeded wear and tear. > > Well... on a side note and it doesn't help the OP but... it does make > sense to put swap on RAID. > > Say a disk dies. Yay, keeps on running because you have the 2nd disk in > the array (let's suppose RAID1). > But if you have something in swap your system will crash when it loads > the swapped-out pages into memory again, because the swap isn't on RAID > (supposing the "dead disk" is also full of bad blocks). > > Having swap on RAID means that the system actually keeps on running when > a disk dies as the swapped out pages will be read from the clean disk in > the degraded array. > > cheers > Pascal Bleser
Excellent point. Thanks, Stan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
