From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Smith Subject: swap on RAID (was Re: swp - Re: ext3 journal on software raid) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:38:11 +0000 Message-ID: <20050106093811.GB99565@caffreys.strugglers.net> References: <41DC9420.5030701@h3c.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tubstlZAyh7waw5D" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --tubstlZAyh7waw5D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:04:00PM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Mike Hardy wrote: >=20 > > There are those that think if they size the machine correctly, they=20 > > shouldn't need swap, and they're right. >=20 > bingo Yet in an earlier reply you state that your machines have swap configured. There is a difference between these two statements: a) I need some amount of swap configured but don't expect a significant swap usage under normal load. b) I expect my server to always be using a significant amount of swap. I interpret your views as (a) but I interpret Mike's as "there are people who are saying that a correctly sized machine can have zero swap configured." Having no swap configured and merely using no swap in normal circumstances are very very different situations. --tubstlZAyh7waw5D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFB3QcDIJm2TL8VSQsRApd8AKDO7cUdZaJTb0/41y8m3ZgX5NfgsgCfYITR 3lKCaOJopBHyUhYk/mlzCo0= =2GVG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tubstlZAyh7waw5D--