Re: In this partition scheme, grub does not find md information?

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:44:20PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>
>>> Depending on near/far choices, raid10 should be faster than raid5, 
>>> with far read should be quite a bit faster. You can't boot off 
>>> raid10, and if you put your swap on it many recovery CDs won't use 
>>> it. But for general use and swap on a normally booted system it is 
>>> quite fast.
>>
>> Hmm, why would you put swap on a raid10? I would in a production
>> environment always put it on separate swap partitions, possibly a 
>> number,
>> given that a number of drives are available.
>>
>
> Because you want some redundancy for the swap as well. A swap 
> partition/file becoming inaccessible is equivalent to yanking out a 
> stick of memory out of your motherboard.

I can't say it better. Losing a swap area will make the system fail in 
one way or the other, in my systems typicalls expressed as a crash of 
varying severity. I use raid10 because it is the fastest reliable level 
I've found.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
  be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark 



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html