On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Bill Broadley wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 10:23:40AM -0800, Stephen M. Helms wrote:
> > This makes perfect sense on a production machine, not needed in my
> > case. I will remember for further reference for sure.
> >
> > Bill: How do you handle swap partitions on this machine?
>
> Normal swap partitions, as recommended, it makes sense since you don't
> need the overhead of the raid layer and swap already will make use
> of multiple disks for increased performance.
Not a RAID user, but this doesn't make sense to me. If part of my swap
goes south, how can my applications continue to run? I think it depends
on whether you require continuous reliable operation or are only willing
to pay for safe data and nevermind a crash related to hardware failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Newmiller The ..... ..... Go Live...
DCN:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go...
Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing
Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries O.O#. #.O#. with
/Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...2k
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
vox-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
