Swap on a redundant RAID is a smart idea, not sure who would tell you
otherwise. Depends which disks are faster? I have a RAID5 which is 2x as
fast as a RAID1 (both SW raid)-- whichever is faster, do some
benchmarking. I would assume RAID10, but I have not benchmarked to
confirm this.
Justin.
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Hi,
I need to use a raid volume for swap, utilizing partitions from 4
physical drives I have available. From my experience I have three
options - raid5, raid10 with 2 offset chunks, and two raid 1 volumes
that are swapon-ed with equal priority. However I have a hard time
figuring out what to use as I am not really sure how can I detect the
usage patterns of swap, left alone benchmark it. Has anyone done
anything like this, or is there information on what kind of reads/writes
the kernel performs when paging in and out?
Before you answer my question - yes, I am painfully aware of the
paradigm "swap on raid is bad", and I know there are other ways to solve
it, but my situation requires me to have swap. Several weeks ago a drive
failed and took a full partition away bringing the system to its knees
and causied massive data corruption. I am also aware that I can use a
file that will reside alongside my other data, but fragmentation makes
this approach inefficient. So I am looking into placing the swap
directly on a raid voulme.
Thanks
Peter
-
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
-
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
