On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 16:26 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > The Wednesday 2007-10-10 at 09:49 -0400, James Knott wrote: > > > Mohsen Rezayatmand wrote: > >> I agree, it is not a good idea to Raid swap space, it is also faster if > >> you do not Raid the swap. > >> > > > > Given the main reason for RAID is fault tolerance, what happens if the > > drive > > holding SWAP craps out and it's not RAID? Would that not tend to cause > > problems for a running system to lose everything in SWAP? On a server I > > have > > at home, everything is on RAID 5, except /boot, which is RAID 1. > > Yes, but it has been proposed to mount swap on a raid 0, and that doesn't > have any fault tolerance, rather the contrary, and it is slower than two > swap stripes. That is my point, that swap on raid 0 is not recomended. >
Why not use filesystem swap (using a file on the mounted partition) as has been suggested a few times in the past? And it was also pointed out that filesystem swap is fast like a raw swap partition. This would effectively put swap on the raid set for the filesystem. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
