2009/4/21 Alex Samad <a...@samad.com.au> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:08:22PM +0300, Michael Iatrou wrote: > > When the date was Monday 20 April 2009, Sam Kuper wrote: > > > Michael, > [snip] > > > > I don't think there is a silver bullet for this. > > > > There is a performance penalty related to soft-RAID. Also swappiness > > configuration must be taken into account. Physical memory and memory usage > > patterns from application perspective count too. And of course the required > > availability for the application is an important factor. > > > > All I am saying is that when thorough evaluation of parameters like the > > above is out of scope, there is probably no good reason to have swap on > > RAID. > > with the cost of hd's being so low, I would suggest the default should > be swap on a raid1
I'm grateful to Mark, Michael and Alex for their replies. I'm planning to go ahead with using RAID 1 for swap, as a possible slight performance hit is more acceptable to me than a crash or data loss would be. Indeed, that's why I'm using redundant RAID in the first place. Apologies for hijacking Bagi's thread! Best, Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
