| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> But you're correct about swap, at least if you have them set at the same |
| 4 |
> priority. The kernel will automatically stripe across all swap |
| 5 |
> partitions set at the same priority, so if you have multiple disks, put a |
| 6 |
> swap partition on each and set the priority equal (in fstab if you |
| 7 |
> automate swap loading from there), and the kernel will automatically |
| 8 |
> stripe them, increasing your swap performance accordingly. =8^) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Note that in such a situation if either disk fails you're likely to end |
| 12 |
up with a panic when your swap device isn't accessible. If uptime is a |
| 13 |
concern mirrored swap is better (but slower). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Of course, if you're running on consumer hardware chances are that |
| 16 |
computer is going to fail if a drive hangs up in any case - most |
| 17 |
motherboards don't handle drive failures gracefully, but server-class |
| 18 |
hardware usually isolates drives so that a drive failure doesn't take |
| 19 |
down the system. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If the bulk of your data is mirrored you'll get everything back on |
| 22 |
reboot after removing the bad drive. However, you will likely lose |
| 23 |
anything in memory. |
Archives