| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 23:16:48 +0100, lee wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> > I would run btrfs on bare partitions and use btrfs's raid1 |
| 5 |
>> > capabilities. You're almost certainly going to get better |
| 6 |
>> > performance, and you get more data integrity features. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> That would require me to set up software raid with mdadm as well, for |
| 9 |
>> the swap partition. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> There's no need to use RAID for swap, it's not like it contains anything |
| 12 |
> of permanent importance. Create a swap partition on each disk and let |
| 13 |
> the kernel use the space as it wants. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
So, while I tend not to run swap on RAID, it isn't an uncommon |
| 16 |
approach because if you don't put swap on raid and you have a drive |
| 17 |
failure while the system is running, then you are likely to have a |
| 18 |
kernel panic. Since one of the main goals of RAID is availability, it |
| 19 |
is logical to put swap on RAID. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It is a risk thing. If your system going down suddenly with no loss |
| 22 |
to data in your regular filesystems isn't a huge problem (maybe this |
| 23 |
is Google's 10,000th read-only caching server) then by all means don't |
| 24 |
put swap on RAID. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The important thing is to understand the risks and make an informed decision. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives