Hey guys,
Sorry, just getting back on subject here I have one more question. I
just noticed by looking under /proc/mdstat that my swap partition is
set to read only:
md1 : active(auto-read-only) raid5 sda5[0] sdc5[3] sdb5[1]
2104320 blocks super 1.0 level 5, 128k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/3] [UUU]
bitmap: 0/9 pages [0KB], 64KB chunk
Is this normal? I do notice I do have swap space detected when I use
free but it hasn't went up in use 1mb or anything so I just want to
make sure that because md1 says its read only that swap can actually
write to it.
free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 503 216 287 0 8 128
-/+ buffers/cache: 79 424
Swap: 2054 0 2054
Thanks,
- Jake
On 10/9/07, Moby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Richard Creighton wrote:
> > Jake Conk wrote:
> >
> >> Moby,
> >>
> >> THANKS!!!!!! That fixed my problem! Yes I don't know why people insist
> >> swap should be on raid 0 other that performance reasons but if your
> >> disk goes belly up then yeah your totally screwed. Anyways I'm glad I
> >> didn't have to go raid 0 in order to fix this problem and now it works
> >> my 10.3, very sweet thank you very much :)
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> - Jake
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I can't say I insist that RAID 0 for swap is safer in case of
> > malfunction, only that performance is improved and of course you get
> > twice the space over raid 1 and with Linux's ability to mkswap in other
> > partitions in an emergency, either when you run short or if the array
> > poops, you aren't really as exposed as you might think, IMO. But,
> > either way, I'm glad you got it going and I'll remember the 'resume'
> > trick for the future...Thanks Moby... The way many of us divide up our
> > physical drives to make up multiple raid arrays, if my swap partition
> > were to fail, it is likely that I have also lost a drive, which has
> > compromised my other raid arrays, so I have a lot of work to do, and
> > worrying about loss of swap space is the least of my problems :) FWIW,
> > I have 3 G of RAM and I rarely use any swap on disk, so my exposure is
> > somewhat minimal I would expect. That and the general reliability of
> > disk drives now days and I figure I have at least a few weeks of
> > relatively uneventful computing due to hardware failure ahead....now,
> > 10.3 GM is another story :)
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 10/9/07, Moby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Jake Conk wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Well the reason why I didn't make it raid 0 because if one of the
> >>>> disks were to go bad then my whole raid would go down right? Can you
> >>>> give me the steps on how to make my md1 device a raid 0 without
> >>>> reformatting my whole system? I don't think I can stop md1 unless I
> >>>> stop all the md devices above it right? (md2/3/4/5)
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> - Jake
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/9/07, Richard Creighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Jake Conk wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I tried to setup a fresh install of 10.3 with 2 disks and I used YaST
> >>>>>> to mirror all my partitions. I had originally my raid swap partitions
> >>>>>> on an extended partition but that didn't work and I thought that was
> >>>>>> the problem so instead now I put the raid partitions on primary
> >>>>>> partitions, which still doesn't work.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any suggestions would be appreciated because I'm completely stumped, I
> >>>>>> can't figure out for the life of mine why my swap partition won't
> >>>>>> work.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I think I would try making your swap partition RAID 0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have MD0 /boot Raid1
> >>>>> MD1 swap Raid 0
> >>>>> MD2 / (root) Raid 1
> >>>>> MD3 /home Raid 5
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and it works well with both 10.2 and 10.3. There is no advantage to
> >>>>> using raid1 with swap anyhow, you really don't need it to be backed up
> >>>>> or duplicated and it just slows the system down even if it did work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> >
> Most welcome Jake and Richard.
> Richard, my apologies if I sounded a bit harsh - just my frustration
> showing on having fought the very same issue for too many hours today
> before finding the fix. As for swap on RAID1 - well, raid'ing any disk
> has pros and cons. The machine I was fighting the very same issue on
> today is almost guaranteed to swap once it goes live, and I need to have
> it able to run until I can get around to fixing it should a disk go bad
> - hence the decision to put swap (and everything else) on RAID.
>
> --
> --Moby
>
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
