| 1 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:22:59 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> > There's no need to use RAID for swap, it's not like it contains |
| 6 |
>> > anything of permanent importance. Create a swap partition on each |
| 7 |
>> > disk and let the kernel use the space as it wants. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> So, while I tend not to run swap on RAID, it isn't an uncommon |
| 10 |
>> approach because if you don't put swap on raid and you have a drive |
| 11 |
>> failure while the system is running, then you are likely to have a |
| 12 |
>> kernel panic. Since one of the main goals of RAID is availability, it |
| 13 |
>> is logical to put swap on RAID. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> That's a point I hadn't considered, but I think I'll leave things as they |
| 16 |
> are for now. I have three drives with a swap partition on each. My system |
| 17 |
> uses very little swap as it is, so the chances of one of those drives |
| 18 |
> failing exactly when something is using that particular drive is pretty |
| 19 |
> small. There's probably more chance of my winning the lottery... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It seems far more likely for a drive to fail when it is used than when |
| 22 |
it is not used. |
Archives