| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|in a non raid, you've increased the odds an application or the |
| 6 |
machine will |
| 7 |
|crash in a failure from losing its swap. The largest gain from a |
| 8 |
raid array |
| 9 |
|is fault tolerence and the ability to sustain a failure. By spliting |
| 10 |
your |
| 11 |
|swap, you decrease the effect an partially cripple the array. |
| 12 |
| |
| 13 |
|If your machine is swaping to the point you need to increase swap |
| 14 |
performance, |
| 15 |
|I think you need to go back to the drawing board and build a better |
| 16 |
machine. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
i think that it depends on the purpose of the machine |
| 19 |
if it is server in 24/7 environment then you are, of course, right |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
i have raid1 setup at home on my workstation and i have two separate |
| 22 |
swap partitions as i have suggested |
| 23 |
my point is not to make sure that my machine won't crash if one drive |
| 24 |
crashes; i just want to be sure that |
| 25 |
my data are (more) safe |
| 26 |
i'm using reiserfs which gives me some protection against filesystem |
| 27 |
corruption in a case of system crash |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
so if i loose one drive, my machine crashes but i won't loose my data, |
| 30 |
i'm happy |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
that's just my humble opinion |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
regards, |
| 35 |
martin |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 38 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 39 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
iD8DBQFAayi0FCvm4cvhqkwRAoz3AJ42uVpRRFqXLqzKPUACnoYMc/B50QCdHQhS |
| 42 |
gyFanH5SImK19v5RD6QyNnw= |
| 43 |
=wWtZ |
| 44 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives