| 1 |
want to leave this list but I can not, can someone erase me from this list? |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 03:21, Joost Roeleveld <joost@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> On Monday 04 April 2011 14:16:45 James wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Mark Shields <laebshade <at> gmail.com> writes: |
| 7 |
> > > The last guide recommends using raid0 on some |
| 8 |
> > > partitions; everytime I use LVM2, I use nothing |
| 9 |
> > > but raid1 partitions. I'd rather have the full |
| 10 |
> > > raid1 than partial raid 1 + speed of raid0. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Well Raid 1 only would be keen. |
| 13 |
> > Even swap as raid 1 ? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > There are actually 2 docs that cross |
| 16 |
> > reference each other. See my post to |
| 17 |
> > Mark's input... |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > thx |
| 20 |
> > James |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> On my server, I use RAID-1 for swap as well. Why risk the system crashing |
| 23 |
> because half the swap dissappears suddenly because of a drive failure? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> There actually is only 1 system that I use regularly with a RAID-0 |
| 26 |
> partition. |
| 27 |
> And that machine is only used for virtual machines I use for testing. If |
| 28 |
> that |
| 29 |
> one dies, worst that happens is I need to recreate the images. Not a big |
| 30 |
> loss |
| 31 |
> for me. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> -- |
| 34 |
> Joost Roeleveld |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Atenciosamente, |
| 41 |
Gregory Fontenele |
Archives