[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:08:45 -0500
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
CC: Denis Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>,
Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no>,
Marc Perkel <marc@...kel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Raid 0 Swap?
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Dec 28 2006 00:06, Mike Huber wrote:
>> I would like to point out one key argument against raid0 swap partitions,
>> which is that, should a drive failure occur, the least used programs in
>> memory are most drastically affected. Unfortunately, in the case of a
>> drastic drive failure in a standalone server, one of the most likely
>> programs to be affected is getty, disallowing you from manually logging in.
>
> However, the footprint of getty is rather small, so its chance to run is higher
> than an idle bigger task (dbus, resmgr, hal, perhaps cron or X)
RAID-0 swap is not the thing to run if reliability is a must, clearly.
Interestingly, after a long fight with poor RAID-5 write speed, I moved
my swap to RAID-10, only to find that recovery disks don't know how to
use it. Tried Fedora and then a live CD (puppy, I think).
Detail on the RAID-5 performance thing in the linux-raid archives, won't
rehash here.
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@....com>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists