On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 05:11:31PM -0800, Jeff Newmiller wrote: > 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.
I agree, swap on raid should be a benefit to stability in drive failure cases. Any running applications that have pages swapped out to a failed drive _will_ have to crash when they attempt to draw that page back in to memory for use. I suspect they would probably receive a SIGSEGV, (this would be fun to test). _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
