| 1 |
On Wednesday 31 March 2004 02:25 pm, Joby Walker wrote: |
| 2 |
> > partition physical drives, create two equally sized small partitions |
| 3 |
> > (one on each drive) -> and use them as two swap partitions later; |
| 4 |
> > it is better then creating swap on lvm over raid |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Agreed. And if you can set the two swap partitions to the same priority |
| 7 |
> in /etc/fstab they will be used simultaneously, which should provide |
| 8 |
> better swap performance. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Typically, you would raid the swap because in the event of a drive failure |
| 11 |
losing swap could cause problems. Usually, the goal of raid 1 is to increase |
| 12 |
the stability of the machine in a failure. By using two seperate swap files |
| 13 |
in a non raid, you've increased the odds an application or the machine will |
| 14 |
crash in a failure from losing its swap. The largest gain from a raid array |
| 15 |
is fault tolerence and the ability to sustain a failure. By spliting your |
| 16 |
swap, you decrease the effect an partially cripple the array. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If your machine is swaping to the point you need to increase swap performance, |
| 19 |
I think you need to go back to the drawing board and build a better machine. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Rob |
Archives