![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Dec 28 2006 00:06, Mike Huber wrote: >> I would like to point out one key argument against raid0 swap partitions, >> which is that, should a drive failure occur, the least used programs in >> memory are most drastically affected. Unfortunately, in the case of a >> drastic drive failure in a standalone server, one of the most likely >> programs to be affected is getty, disallowing you from manually logging in. > > However, the footprint of getty is rather small, so its chance to run is higher > than an idle bigger task (dbus, resmgr, hal, perhaps cron or X) RAID-0 swap is not the thing to run if reliability is a must, clearly. Interestingly, after a long fight with poor RAID-5 write speed, I moved my swap to RAID-10, only to find that recovery disks don't know how to use it. Tried Fedora and then a live CD (puppy, I think). Detail on the RAID-5 performance thing in the linux-raid archives, won't rehash here. -- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-01-01 02:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||