Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from
stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right?
SSDs are still relatively new technology, so predicting failure rates is
less reliable. What's wrong with using RAID-1? It's proven technology and
totally resistant to a single
I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a
tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? If so, do you think
it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD?
I have no swap and things work just fine. (8 gigs of RAM)
Obviously, running without swap
Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from
stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right?
SSDs are still relatively new technology, so predicting failure rates is
less reliable. What's wrong with using RAID-1? It's proven technology and
totally resistant to a single
On 29 Jul 2009, at 19:15, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:20:53 -0700, Grant wrote:
Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from
stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right?
SSDs are still relatively new technology, so predicting failure
rates is
less
On 29 Jul 2009, at 16:20, Grant wrote:
...
Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from
stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right?
As I told you before, I used RAID-1 of two conventional olde spinning-
platter hard-drives, using a hardware-RAID SATA controller. An
Is cost-savings the advantage of using CF instead of SSD? It sounds
like it might be wiser to spend a little more (low capacity SSD drives
are pretty cheap now) and have a real storage device that doesn't need
an adapter and is much faster, can swap, etc.
I assumed that you're looking at
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:17:26 -0700, Grant wrote:
OK, that's right. How can I find out if 4GB RAM (the current amount)
is enough? From what I understand of how Linux handles memory, it
will fill it up as quickly as possible, and then free it as necessary.
This makes it difficult to
Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from
stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right?
SSDs are still relatively new technology, so predicting failure rates is
less reliable. What's wrong with using RAID-1? It's proven technology and
totally resistant to a single
OK, that's right. How can I find out if 4GB RAM (the current amount)
is enough? From what I understand of how Linux handles memory, it
will fill it up as quickly as possible, and then free it as necessary.
This makes it difficult to determine how much RAM is necessary from
watching top.
On Thursday 30 July 2009 14:17:26 Grant wrote:
OK, that's right. How can I find out if 4GB RAM (the current amount)
is enough? From what I understand of how Linux handles memory, it
will fill it up as quickly as possible, and then free it as necessary.
This makes it difficult to determine
Grant writes:
From what I understand of how Linux handles memory, it
will fill it up as quickly as possible, and then free it as necessary.
This makes it difficult to determine how much RAM is necessary from
watching top.
I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a
OK, that's right. How can I find out if 4GB RAM (the current amount)
is enough? From what I understand of how Linux handles memory, it
will fill it up as quickly as possible, and then free it as necessary.
This makes it difficult to determine how much RAM is necessary from
watching top.
Grant writes:
Sounds good. Will commenting the swap line out of /etc/fstab and
rebooting disable swap?
Yes. Or, temporarily, the 'swapoff' command.
In order to resize the root partition to
include the swap paritition, I'll have to boot to LiveCD right?
I think it might work without. If
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Grantemailgr...@gmail.com wrote:
I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a
tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? If so, do you think
it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD?
I have no swap and things
On Thursday 30 July 2009 15:47:18 Grant wrote:
Not true. I have machines with zero swap and they work just fine. I am
utterly unconcerned with out of memory conditions as whether you have
swap or not, when virtual memory runs out, either way you have a horrible
cockup that is hard to fix.
On Thursday 30 July 2009 14:47:18 Grant wrote:
Sounds good. Will commenting the swap line out of /etc/fstab and
rebooting disable swap?
I'd also recompile the kernel with CONFIG_SWAP=n.
--
Rgds
Peter
Sounds good. Will commenting the swap line out of /etc/fstab and
rebooting disable swap?
Yes. Or, temporarily, the 'swapoff' command.
In order to resize the root partition to
include the swap paritition, I'll have to boot to LiveCD right?
I think it might work without. If you have
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:57:52 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
If your partition table is laid out with the swap partition directly
after the root partition, you can delete both, recreate the root
partition the same size as both together. The new root partition must
start where the old one did.
On Thursday 30 July 2009 17:45:30 Grant wrote:
Sounds good. Will commenting the swap line out of /etc/fstab and
rebooting disable swap?
Yes. Or, temporarily, the 'swapoff' command.
In order to resize the root partition to
include the swap paritition, I'll have to boot to LiveCD
I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a
tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? If so, do you think
it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD?
I have no swap and things work just fine. (8 gigs of RAM)
Obviously, running without swap
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Grantemailgr...@gmail.com wrote:
I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a
tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? If so, do you think
it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD?
I have no swap and things
I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a
tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? If so, do you think
it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD?
I have no swap and things work just fine. (8 gigs of RAM)
Obviously, running without swap
Grant schrieb:
Aren't CF cards much slower than SSD drives and HD drives?
How about using SD cards, like Dell/HP do in VMWare ESXi servers?
I'm just in th middle of speccig a server that will have zero local
storage, except the SD card that holds ESXi, all storage needs are
handled by
Is cost-savings the advantage of using CF instead of SSD? It sounds
like it might be wiser to spend a little more (low capacity SSD drives
are pretty cheap now) and have a real storage device that doesn't need
an adapter and is much faster, can swap, etc.
I assumed that you're looking at
Grant schrieb:
Is cost-savings the advantage of using CF instead of SSD? It sounds
like it might be wiser to spend a little more (low capacity SSD drives
are pretty cheap now) and have a real storage device that doesn't need
an adapter and is much faster, can swap, etc.
I assumed that you're
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:20:53 -0700, Grant wrote:
Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from
stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right?
SSDs are still relatively new technology, so predicting failure rates is
less reliable. What's wrong with using RAID-1? It's proven
... What if I bought a low-price/low-capacity SSD drive for each
of these systems, installed the system essentials on them, and used my
existing high-capacity HD drives for data storage? Would each system
keep running if the HDs died? If so, I think that would offer as good
or better system
On 28 Jul 2009, at 18:52, Grant wrote:
...
Is cost-savings the advantage of using CF instead of SSD? It sounds
like it might be wiser to spend a little more (low capacity SSD drives
are pretty cheap now) and have a real storage device that doesn't need
an adapter and is much faster, can swap,
On 26 Jul 2009, at 11:46, Grant wrote:
... What if I bought a low-price/low-capacity SSD drive for each
of these systems, installed the system essentials on them, and used my
existing high-capacity HD drives for data storage? Would each system
keep running if the HDs died? If so, I think that
... What if I bought a low-price/low-capacity SSD drive for each
of these systems, installed the system essentials on them, and used my
existing high-capacity HD drives for data storage? Would each system
keep running if the HDs died? If so, I think that would offer as good
or better system
Grant schrieb:
... What if I bought a low-price/low-capacity SSD drive for each
of these systems, installed the system essentials on them, and used my
existing high-capacity HD drives for data storage? Would each system
keep running if the HDs died? If so, I think that would offer as good
Florian Philipp schrieb:
Where I work, we have a System-on-a-Chip (SoC) NAS. Albeit being the
second most powerful machine we have in our server room (quad core CPU,
lots of RAM, three redundant power supplies and a good dozen HDDs), the
OSS itself resides on a removable card not bigger than
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Florian Philipp
li...@f_philipp.fastmail.net wrote:
Grant schrieb:
snip
You don't need to buy SSD drives - instead you could use CF cards and
a
cheap adaptor. These are commensurate in capacity cost with USB flash
drives (4gig, maybe 16gig?), but CF
I have two local systems that need to be reliable and also have a
large storage capacity. The thing is, the data storage doesn't need
to be reliable, I just need the systems to keep running. The data on
the systems is backed up and losing it wouldn't be the end of the
world because of the
34 matches
Mail list logo
