On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Keld Simonsen <keld@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Or if you put your swap on a RAID0 device. Simon. -- 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
