On Sun, 26 Dec 1999, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming that it is _ONLY_ under reconstruction that swapping
> on RAID is not safe ?
>
> I've been rather busy lately (still am) so I didn't read the bug report... Is this
> reconstruction/swap bug present in all RAID levels (with re
On Sun, Dec 26, 1999 at 08:32:13PM +0100, Johan Ekenberg wrote:
> According to Mr. Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], swapping on RAID is not
> safe. This is an excerpt of our discussion on the list just recently, I'm
> the one starting, commenting on a regular swap setup with several non-RAID
> swa
On Sun, Dec 26, 1999 at 03:26:07PM -0500, Andy Poling wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 1999, Johan Ekenberg wrote:
> > As I see it, either the HOWTO is wrong, Mr Berra is wrong, or I'm not really
> > understanding what the HOWTO is saying. In the first case it would be good
> > to correct/expand the HOWTO,
On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 13:40:51 +0100, you wrote:
>What is the entry "unused devices" in /proc/mdstat?
I believe this refers to /dev/md[x] devices that are defined but
unused.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber | "
> > According to Mr. Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], swapping on RAID is not
> it is not just according to me, it is Stephen Tweedie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> who spotted the bug. search the recent list archives for the previous
> discussion, it was very similar to ours.
That's alright, then Jacob w
On Sun, 26 Dec 1999, Johan Ekenberg wrote:
> As I see it, either the HOWTO is wrong, Mr Berra is wrong, or I'm not really
> understanding what the HOWTO is saying. In the first case it would be good
> to correct/expand the HOWTO, in the other cases I would be very happy for a
> clarification from
On Sun, Dec 26, 1999 at 08:32:13PM +0100, Johan Ekenberg wrote:
> According to Mr. Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], swapping on RAID is not
it is not just according to me, it is Stephen Tweedie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
who spotted the bug. search the recent list archives for the previous
discussion, it
According to Mr. Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], swapping on RAID is not
safe. This is an excerpt of our discussion on the list just recently, I'm
the one starting, commenting on a regular swap setup with several non-RAID
swap partitions:
> > > > Alright, but this approach is still vulnerable to
On Sun, Dec 26, 1999 at 01:38:11PM +0100, Johan Ekenberg wrote:
> > sorry, but swap-on-raid is not stable.
> > raid uses the buffer cache,
> > swap does not
> > result: when your swap partition is resyncing, due to disk failure or
> > unclean shutdown swap gets corruppted.
>
> Is this a fact even
> sorry, but swap-on-raid is not stable.
> raid uses the buffer cache,
> swap does not
> result: when your swap partition is resyncing, due to disk failure or
> unclean shutdown swap gets corruppted.
Is this a fact even when using a swapfile? That's what I do. No swap
partitions, just a large swa
Thanks, that feels reassuring!
What is the entry "unused devices" in /proc/mdstat?
> By the mdstat shown below, you have a 3 drive raid-5 device with
> one spare. The
> [0], [1] and [2] indicate the raid role for the associated disks.
> Values of [3]
> or higher are the spare (for a three disk
On Sun, Dec 26, 1999 at 01:37:05AM +0100, Johan Ekenberg wrote:
> Alright, but this approach is still vulnerable to a disk crash. I one of the
> disks currently used for swapping goes down, the machine goes with it. At
> least according to Jacobs HOWTO... Maybe it's a question of choosing between
12 matches
Mail list logo
