> From: Keld Simonsen [mailto:keld@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 8:04 PM > To: Leslie Rhorer > Cc: 'Mark Knecht'; 'Carlos Mennens'; 'Mdadm' > Subject: Re: RAID Configuration For New Home Server > > 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. True. A 4 disk RAID1 array is overkill to the point of absurdity, though. Perhaps a RAID10 or RAID4 array would be a good compromise. -- 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
