Kyle <k...@attitia.com> writes: > Daniel Pittman wrote: >> Kyle <k...@attitia.com> writes: >> >>> Maybe, but the last machine I had I ran LVM. I had a hard enough time >>> remembering which volume belonged to which group belonged to which >>> disk (and that despite naming them along the lines of; >>> 'lv00Grp00Hda1', lv01Grp00Hda1'). >>> >> My immediate response to that is "why would you bother?" >> > Being anal. Plus I was new to LVM at the time.
*nod* OK, that helps explain why. :) >> The only case I can think of where it would matter are wanting to have >> specific partitions on specific disk sets, for performance, > exactly. That and local backups. Mmmm. Local backups? As in, add another disk and use it as the backup target? That is reasonable. >> Well, at the moment you have RAID 1 under everything except for swap, >> which you have on a RAID 0 array. (Implemented, in this case, through >> the Linux kernel balancing swap space use when areas have equal >> priority, as your two separate partitions do.) >> > Hmmm. If I think about it... My logic at the time would probably have been; > > If one disk in the array fails, then all data is mirrored. Yes, the machine > might crash and if it had anything in SWAP at that time, > I would lose that information. Acceptable risk. > > However, with a single mirrored disk, and still a complete SWAP > partition, I expected I would be able to restart and function on the > one disk temporarily until such point in time as I was to rebuild the > mirror. > > Are you saying that wouldn't work? No, that will work as you state: a crash will potentially take your system down, recovery will be fine. If you have accepted that trade-off then all is well. A surprising number of people /don't/ consider that, and can't afford to have the system go down, but still use RAID-0 swap. :) Regards, Daniel -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html