Re: Raid 0 Swap?

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

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/