| 1 |
Hi Richard, |
| 2 |
on Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 02:08:26PM -0400, you wrote: |
| 3 |
> Note that in such a situation if either disk fails you're likely to end up |
| 4 |
> with a panic when your swap device isn't accessible. If uptime is a |
| 5 |
> concern mirrored swap is better (but slower). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Of course, if you're running on consumer hardware chances are that computer |
| 8 |
> is going to fail if a drive hangs up in any case - most motherboards don't |
| 9 |
> handle drive failures gracefully, but server-class hardware usually |
| 10 |
> isolates drives so that a drive failure doesn't take down the system. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
True, that's a risk I figured I could live with. It's actually a server |
| 13 |
board but in a regular tower case and w/o hot-swappable drives, and I'm |
| 14 |
not controlling my iron lung with it :) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
cheers, |
| 17 |
Matthias |
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
I prefer encrypted and signed messages. KeyID: FAC37665 |
| 20 |
Fingerprint: 8C16 3F0A A6FC DF0D 19B0 8DEF 48D9 1700 FAC3 7665 |
Archives