Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:44:20PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Depending on near/far choices, raid10 should be faster than raid5, with
far read should be quite a bit faster. You can't boot off raid10, and if
you put your swap on it many recovery CDs won't use it. But for general
use and swap on a normally booted system it is quite fast.
Hmm, why would you put swap on a raid10? I would in a production
environment always put it on separate swap partitions, possibly a number,
given that a number of drives are available.
Because you want some redundancy for the swap as well. A swap partition/file
becoming inaccessible is equivalent to yanking out a stick of memory out of
your motherboard.
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
