On 15 Apr 2001 10:37:15 -0400, ritz wrote:
> > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Apr 15 10:06:55 2001
> >
> > On 15 Apr 2001 12:35:38 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:31:36 -0000, Craig Servin wrote:
> > >
> > > >I am curious if swap on raid works in the 2.4 kernels. If anyone could let me
> > > >know I would appreciate it.
> > >
> > > But would it - necessarily - make sense ? if you use multiple swap-paritions,
>Linux
> > > will alternate between them, provided you give them the same priority. Wouldn't
> > > that achieve the same goal, ie. faster swapping ?
> >
> > Not necessarily. RAID isn't only used to make disks faster, it's also
> > used to make them more reliable. If one of the disks where you have
> > swap dies, Linux isn't going to be very happy, even if all of the other
> > data on that disk is still available (because of RAID in some form).
> > The problem with swap on RAID in the 2.2.x series kernels was that
> > during a RAID re-sync, swap on RAID was unsafe, and could cause (IIRC)
> > corruption. The usual way of handling this was to simply NOT enable
> > swap until the RAID re-sync was done. I haven't migrated any of my
> > machines to the 2.4.x kernels, so I'm not sure what the current status
> > is.
>
> I don't follow. If you have two swap partitions on separate drives
> (A and B), and one of the disks dies, you still have access to the
> other disk's swap partition. Wasn't the original poster discussing
> swap on RAID0 device? In that case, if ANY of the disks on the RAID
> 0 device dies, you lose access to all your swap on that device.
Yes, they may have been, but I don't keep the entire thread in my
mailbox, and since it wasn't quoted, I have no idea. :-/
> I could see your point for Raid 1/5 though.
And those are the (primary) RAID levels to which my comments apply (they
also apply for RAID 3/4 and combination RAID levels). Sorry about that
confusion,
Greg
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
