Peter Rabbitson wrote:
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.
I can't say it better. Losing a swap area will make the system fail in
one way or the other, in my systems typicalls expressed as a crash of
varying severity. I use raid10 because it is the fastest reliable level
I've found.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
"Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark
-
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
