On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 01:35:53PM +0100, Daniel Tryba wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 08:11:00PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> [snip]
> > Does this seem like a workable/wise plan or here there be dragons? Is
> > there any reason to think that 20 GB is too small for a fully installed
> > workstat
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 08:11:00PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
[snip]
> Does this seem like a workable/wise plan or here there be dragons? Is
> there any reason to think that 20 GB is too small for a fully installed
> workstation including swap and /tmp (everything but /home)?
Sounds sane, except
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 06:20:31PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 09:13:51PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 05:52:08PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 08:11:00PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Th
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 09:13:51PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 05:52:08PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 08:11:00PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> > >
> > > Then LVs for everything including swap.
> >
> > my genuine curiousity question is
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 05:52:08PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 08:11:00PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> >
> > Then LVs for everything including swap.
>
> my genuine curiousity question is why you would bother to put swap on raid? I
> suppose if you had a lot of s
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 08:11:00PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
>
> Then LVs for everything including swap.
my genuine curiousity question is why you would bother to put swap on raid? I
suppose if you had a lot of swapping going on and a drive failed, it
could be catastrophic, but that's the only
6 matches
Mail list logo
