Michael, 2009/4/20 Michael Iatrou <m.iat...@freemail.gr>
> When the date was Monday 20 April 2009, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 03:29:00PM +0300, Michael Iatrou wrote: > > > There is no particularly good reason to have the swap on RAID. You > > > should define three independed swap partitions; if disk fails, kernel > > > will use the other available. > > > > If swap fails, what happens if something important to the running of the > > system (not just a user app) is swapped-out? I've seen advice on this > > list many times that to avoid a crash, if other system stuff is on raid, > > that swap should be as well. > > I cannot confirm that; instead I am assuming a workflow like the following: > > 1. A disk is about to fail > 2. Notification from SMART hits sysadmin's mailbox > 3. # swapoff /dev/sdXY > 4. Replace disk, create partitions > 5. # swapon /dev/sdXY > 6. # mdadm /dev/mdK -a /dev/sdXZ > If the system is running unattended - for instance if it's a server being run by a hobbyist, which doesn't have a sysadmin permanently available to respond to problems - then step 3 may not occur before the disk fails. In this scenario, isn't Douglas right that it's better to have the swap on (redundant) RAID? Many thanks, Sam
