Le 23/06/2022 à 23:39, Wols Lists a écrit :
On 23/06/2022 19:54, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
If you set the fstab priorities to the same value, you get a striped
raid-0 for free.
Without any redundancy. What is the point of setting up RAID1 for all
the rest and see your system crash pitifully when a drive fails
because half of the swap suddenly becomes unreachable ?
Why would it crash?
Do you really believe a program can lose some of its data and still
behave as if nothing happened ? If that were true, then why not just
discard data instead of swap them out when memory is short ?
Firstly, the system shouldn't be swapping. MOST
systems, under MOST workloads, don't need swap.
Conversely, some systems, under some workloads, do need swap. And when
they do, swap needs to be as reliable as any other storage space.
And secondly, the *system* should not be using swap. User space, yes. So
a bunch of running stuff might crash. But the system should stay up.
Firstly, the *system* is not only the kernel. Many user space processes
are part of the *system*. Secondly, you were the one who wrote:
"/tmp - is usually tmpfs nowadays, if you need disk backing, just make
sure you've got a big-enough swap (tmpfs defaults to half ram, make it
bigger and let it swap)."
Raid is meant to protect your data. The benefit for raiding your swap is
much less, and *should* be negligible.
No, this is what backup is meant to. RAID does not protect your data
against accidental or malicious deletion or corruption. RAID is meant to
provide availabity. The benefit of having everything including swap on
RAID is that the system as a whole will continue to operate normally
when a drive fails.
