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