On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 06:56:31PM -0500, Leslie Rhorer wrote: > > > It's certainly workable. You might consider something other than > > > RAID1 for your swap partition. > > > > Looks reasonable. Some comments: > > > > > 2) I don't use RAID for swap. I let the kernel do that internally. I > > almost never swap out on my home server so trying to protect that with > > RAID for the few moments I might use it seems like overkill to me. > > I halfway agree. My servers almost never use any significant amount > of swap, and even my workstations only use it very occasionally. There have > been instances, however, where the swap has grown to be quite large. With > that in mind, and given the very small amount he has allocated for swap, one > might suggest a RAID0 array of the areas to be used for swap, or maybe an > LVM volume. If you use some mirrored RAID for swap, your system will continue to run, if one of your disks go bad. Then you can replace the faulty disk at a later, and possibly more convenient time. If you do not have RAID, your system will most likely go down, if the swap partiion is damaged. best regards keld -- 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
