[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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).
I also agree this would be a benefit, it just does not seem to be supported. I could be wrong though as the how-to is dated and I have not set this up yet and would be using a later kernel. _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
