On Monday 03 January 2005 22:36, Guy wrote: > Maarten said: > "Doing the math, the outcome is still (200% divided by four)= 50%. > Ergo: the same as with a single disk. No change." > > Guy said: > "I bet a non-mirror disk has similar risk as a RAID1." > > Guy and Maarten agree, but Maarten does a better job of explaining it! :) > > I also agree with most of what Maarten said below, but not mirroring > swap??? Yeah... bad choice in hindsight. But, there once was a time, a long long time ago, that the software-raid howto explicitly stated that running swap on raid was a bad idea, and that by telling the kernel all swap partitions had the same priority, the kernel itself would already 'raid' the swap, ie. divide equally between the swap spaces. I'm sure you can read it back somewhere. Now we know better, and we realize that that will indeed loadbalance between the various swap partitions, but it will not provide redundancy at all. Oh well, new insights huh ? ;-) Maarten - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
