On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Henry J. Cobb wrote:
Does anybody really want to wait while their swap data is duplicated out to
multiple disks by a CPU that is working to free up memory to run
applications?
Isn't Swapping slow enough already?
Why not simply swap on multiple disks, get Hardware
Does anybody really want to wait while their swap data is duplicated
out to multiple disks by a CPU that is working to free up memory to
run applications?
Isn't Swapping slow enough already?
Why not simply swap on multiple disks, get Hardware RAID-5 for swap
or buy RAM?
If ANY swap
Well, the reason we have our systems set to swap on RAID (we use RAID-1) is
that this improves our robustness. Even if one of our disks dies then the
swap continues to work and the system is still stable. Also, I believe, it
is possible to use a RAID-10 to stripe and mirror and actually improve
On Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 05:35:19PM -0800, Michael wrote:
Could the Raid experts revisit a portion of the discussion about swap
on raid. I understand that the use/non-use of buffer space during
reconsturction vs swap creates a problem for swap on raid, however in
my pea-sized brain it
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
I think that he's talking about RAID10. Take two RAID1 devices and bond
them with RAID0.
no i think he means two seperate raid1 md devices for swap. raid10
would be even more overhead imo - but if anyone has empirical
evidence i'd love to see
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
well, i'm just testing at the moment to see if it's feasible. Anyway,
i never mentioned an amount of swap, i didn't say anything about
384mb. I actually have 4 partitions of 40MB = 160MB total. After
RAID5 - 120MB, which is reasonable.
Funny, you should
I don't think the 128Meg swap limit applies any more!
On 15 Jul 1999, Osma Ahvenlampi wrote:
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
well, i'm just testing at the moment to see if it's feasible. Anyway,
i never mentioned an amount of swap, i didn't say anything about
384mb. I actually
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Swap on Raid ???
A James Lewis wrote:
I don't think the 128Meg swap limit applies any more!
I think it is possible to create swap 'spaces' larger than 128M, but it
will only take advantage of the first 128M (but I can't find an exact
answer in the kernel right now
Marc Mutz wrote:
MadHat wrote:
A James Lewis wrote:
I don't think the 128Meg swap limit applies any more!
I think it is possible to create swap 'spaces' larger than 128M, but it
will only take advantage of the first 128M (but I can't find an exact
answer in the kernel
I think it is possible to create swap 'spaces' larger than 128M, but it
will only take advantage of the first 128M (but I can't find an exact
answer in the kernel right now). Can you point me to a page or kernel
source that says you can use more that 128M, I can't find it. Thanks.
You may
Helge Hafting wrote:
I think it is possible to create swap 'spaces' larger than 128M, but it
will only take advantage of the first 128M (but I can't find an exact
answer in the kernel right now). Can you point me to a page or kernel
source that says you can use more that 128M, I can't
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with RAID1 i have 1/2 the physical space available for swap.
with RAID5 i have 3/4 of physical space available for swap.
hence i choose RAID5.
seems a lot more efficient to me.
Space-efficient, yes, speed-efficient, certainly not. Are you
absolutely
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Jonathan F. Dill
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 5:20 PM
AFAIK unless you've done something to the kernel to get around that
limit. What's the point of running swap on RAID anyway? Memory is
cheap these days--seems to me rather than wasting time
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Jakma
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 10:01 AM
To: Osma Ahvenlampi
On 14 Jul 1999, Osma Ahvenlampi wrote:
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with RAID1 i have 1/2 the physical space available for swap.
with RAID5 i have 3/4 of physical
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
snip
RAID-1 is faster? since when? RAID-5 should be faster at reads. I get
~25MB/s sustained read across 4 U/W disks, 16MB/s sustained write
according to bonnie. (i've never tried RAID-1 to be honest).
I think that he's talking about RAID10. Take two RAID1
On Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 01:59:46PM -0700, Joel Fowler wrote:
I use RedHat 6.0 with a 2.2.5-22 kernel and raid-tools-0.90.
I have just configured and am using raid-1 on 5 filesystems including root.
The only problem I have is a failed-busy message bringing down my root
partition when
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Joel Fowler wrote:
Now, I would like to raid-1 my swap partition for high-availability. I
read in the Software-Raid-HOWTO that as of 2.0.x that it wasn't supported
and would cause crashes. Is that still the case with the 2.2.5-22 kernel?
If it will work, is there a
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Joel Fowler wrote:
Now, I would like to raid-1 my swap partition for high-availability. I
read in the Software-Raid-HOWTO that as of 2.0.x that it wasn't supported
and would cause crashes. Is that still the case with the
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The HOWTO states that swapping on RAID is unsafe, and that is probably
unjustified with the latest RAID patches.
yes swapping is safe. It's _slightly_ justified with RAID1 to be fair -
but i've tried it myself and was unable to reproduce anything
Why does anybody want to use swap-on-RAID with any RAID level than 1?
Wouldn't it be much faster if you used multiple swap spaces?
Marc
--
Marc Mutz [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://marc.mutz.com/
University of Bielefeld, Dep. of Mathematics / Dep. of Physics
PGP-keyID's:
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Marc Mutz wrote:
Why does anybody want to use swap-on-RAID with any RAID level than 1?
Wouldn't it be much faster if you used multiple swap spaces?
Marc
cause i have 4 partitions dedicated to swap. with raid-1 i have only
1/5 the space available to use for swap.
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Marc Mutz wrote:
Why does anybody want to use swap-on-RAID with any RAID level than 1?
Wouldn't it be much faster if you used multiple swap spaces?
Marc
cause i have 4 partitions dedicated to swap. with
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Marc Mutz wrote:
Why does anybody want to use swap-on-RAID with any RAID level
than 1? Wouldn't it be much faster if you used multiple swap
spaces?
Pretty simple. If your swap space becomes corrupted or you lose the
disk it resides on, the kernel
Paul Jakma wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Marc Mutz wrote:
Why does anybody want to use swap-on-RAID with any RAID level than 1?
Wouldn't it be much faster if you used multiple swap spaces?
Marc
cause i have 4 partitions dedicated to swap. with raid-1 i have only
1/5 the space
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Jonathan F. Dill wrote:
Without RAID or with RAID-0 you have 4/4 of the physical space
available for swap. The maximum size for a linux swap space is ~127 MB
AFAIK unless you've done something to the kernel to get around that
limit.
that limit is gone up in 2.2.
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: Swap on raid
Empfänger: Dietmar Stein
Kopie-Empfänger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Datum: 12. Mai 1999 01:13
Do other people have opinions on the "Lifetime" MTBF of a harddrive... My
experience is about 15000 hours continuous
Do other people have opinions on the "Lifetime" MTBF of a harddrive... My
experience is about 15000 hours continuous operation.
I've seen manufacturers claim 30 hours MTBF, but that's not realistic
in my experience... mabe 3 in a more controlled environment with good
aircon etc
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 07:26:53PM +0200, Dietmar Stein wrote:
Hi
At work we got much HP-Workstations and -Servers; everyone got a
swap-partition which is of same size as physical memory (or even
bigger).
hp-ux uses swap partitions as a dump device, something i'd love
to see on linux
Hi
Ok - I understand what you are meaning; I think we have just different
opinions towards lifetime of a harddrive.
Maybe, I will go on using only one disk for swap - but it is interesting
seeing other opinions concerning lifetime of a hdd and security.
Greetings, Dietmar
Luca Berra wrote:
Hi,
You can run a system without a swap device. But if you do 'swapoff -a'
_after_ a swap device failure, you are dead (if swap had any virtual
data stored in it.)
'swapoff -a' copies virtual data stored in the swap device to physical
memory before closing the device. This is much different
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 1999 06:39
Subject: Re: Swap on raid
Hi,
Having read Jabob's Software-RAID HOWTO (0.90.2 - alpha 27th of
February 1997), I learned that you are not supposed to swap on a raid
partition. You can make the kernel stripe swap on different devices
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Gulcu Ceki wrote:
On the other hand, if the intent is higher reliability, then one can
swap on a RAID-1 partition.
i wonder, can you have your swap on a raid5 partition? raid-1 seems
a bit of a waste of hdd space.
--
Paul Jakma
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
A question in between: what sense does it make to have the swap onto
raid?
I think, that moment your machine starts swapping you´ll get some
performance problems which wouldn't be solved by using "raid-swap"
instead of swap on a single disk or whatever. Think of the meaning of
swap
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Dietmar Stein wrote:
A question in between: what sense does it make to have the swap onto
raid?
If the swap partition becomes inaccessible, the machine crashes. that
means if a disk goes down with a swap partition on it, you are dead.
If the partition is on "raid" and
on a non-redundant system.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: Dietmar Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 1999 12:30
Subject: Re: Swap on raid
Hi
A question in between: what sense does it make to have the swap onto
raid?
I
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Dietmar Stein wrote:
Hi
A question in between: what sense does it make to have the swap onto
raid?
I think, that moment your machine starts swapping you´ll get some
performance problems which wouldn't be solved by using "raid-swap"
instead of swap on a
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Absender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: Swap on raid
Empfänger: Dietmar Stein
Kopie-Empfänger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Datum: 09. Mai 1999 21:09
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Dietmar Stein wrote:
Hi
A question in between: what sense does it make to have the swap onto
raid
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We know raid1 works, but would swap on raid5? i hope it would, as
raid5 is less wasteful of disk space than raid1.
But the couple of hundred megs you need for swap (at maximum) don't
really amount to anything in a big system. raid1 is faster than
raid5.
--
Osma Ahvenlampi [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it does work for me (i do not actually use it as such, but i\'ve done
some
stresstesting under heavy load). Let me know if you find any problems.
Hmm? Since when does swapping work on raid-1? How about
swap running on raid then, if it works at all, is not actually
protecting you. the swap code in the kern is capable of doing
striping automatically if you have two swap partitions.
Yes it does. If one of two swap partitions goes down on non-raid
drives, the kernel locks up and you loose
Hi again,
I have done a small test with a raid-1 swap partition. I have filled up
memory so that the system swaps
to the raid swap partition with a little test program and the system
worked, top shows 800M of swap used
and still going. Does this tell me that it will always work? Or are there
Helge Hafting wrote:
Why do you want to swap onto raid?
Creating ordinary swap partitions with equal priority on
several drives will achieve the same speedup as far as I know,
as the kernel will spread swapping across all the swap partitions.
This achieves the same speedup as raid-0
Hi,
On 15 Apr 1999 00:13:48 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
AFAIK, the swap code uses raw file blocks on disk, rather than passing
through to vfs, cause you dont want to cache swap accesses, think
about it :)
Sort of correct. It does bypass most of the VFS, but it does use the
standard
Hi,
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:32:40 -0400, "Joe Garcia" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Swapping to a file should work, but if I remember correctly you get
horrible performance.
Swap-file performance on 2.2 kernels is _much_ better.
--Stephen
Hi,
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:59:49 +0100 (BST), A James Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
It wasn't a month ago that this was not possible because it needed to
allocate memory for the raid and couldn't because it needed to swap to
do it? Was I imagining this or have you guys been working too
Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:59:49 +0100 (BST), A James Lewis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
It wasn't a month ago that this was not possible because it needed
to
allocate memory for the raid and couldn't because it needed to swap
to
do it? Was I imagining this or
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks,
we are trying to set up a mirrored (raid-1) system for reliability
but it is not possible according
to the latest HOWTO to swap onto a raid volume. Is there any change on
this?
it does work for me (i do not actually use it as
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it does work for me (i do not actually use it as such, but i've done some
stresstesting under heavy load). Let me know if you find any problems.
Hmm? Since when does swapping work on raid-1? How about raid-5?
--
Osma Ahvenlampi
On 14 Apr 1999, Osma Ahvenlampi wrote:
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it does work for me (i do not actually use it as such, but i've done some
stresstesting under heavy load). Let me know if you find any problems.
Hmm? Since when does swapping work on raid-1? How about raid-5?
Hello All, Cool now when do we get the new alpha-lilo
alpha-silo, alpha-milo tools to support the alpha-raid ?
I know, I know, 'hack away...' tnx, JimL
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote:
On 14 Apr 1999, Osma Ahvenlampi wrote:
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Swapping to a file should work, but if I remember correctly you get horrible
performance.
Joe
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 9:36 AM
To: Linux Raid
Subject: Swap on raid
Hi
Errr?
It wasn't a month ago that this was not possible because it needed to
allocate memory for the raid and couldn't because it needed to swap to do
it? Was I imagining this or have you guys been working too hard!
Either way, brill!
James
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote:
On 14
52 matches
Mail list logo
