[gentoo-amd64] Re: Symlinks vs. Bind mounts.

[Duncan]

Richard Freeman <rich@××××××××××××××.net> posted
48A4749A.60509@××××××××××××××.net, excerpted below, on  Thu, 14 Aug 2008
14:08:26 -0400:

> Duncan wrote:
>>
>> But you're correct about swap[...] at the same priority
>>
> Note that in such a situation if either disk fails you're likely to end
> up with a panic when your swap device isn't accessible.  If uptime is a
> concern mirrored swap is better (but slower).

Correct.  However, I'm not too worried about a crash.  In fact, I don't 
even have a UPS here, tho it's on my list again now that I switched to 
LCDs from CRTs.  

> If the bulk of your data is mirrored you'll get everything back on
> reboot after removing the bad drive.  However, you will likely lose
> anything in memory.

That's the plan.  As long as I don't lose the data on the RAID-6 (and 
RAID-1, to boot with), I'm fine.  I don't have a spare drive to repair to 
either, tho I could buy one relatively quickly if necessary.  But I did 
deliberately choose RAID-6 with double redundancy over RAID-5 with single 
redundancy and a "hot-spare".

Of course, if three of the four go out before I can get at least one 
repaired, I'm still SOL, but that's a chance I'm willing to take, and a 
serious improvement over the backup-copy-on-a-different-partition-on-the-
same-spindle scheme I was using before.  It's only my hobby, after all, 
not holding a month or year's income dependency, and if I had that many 
drives die at once, chances are I'd have bigger problems, and would be 
looking at buying a whole new computer, and possibly a whole new house, 
anyway.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman