Re: Raid 0 Swap?

From: Bill Davidsen
Date: Sun Dec 31 2006 - 21:01:53 EST

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Dec 28 2006 00:06, Mike Huber wrote:
I would like to point out one key argument against raid0 swap partitions,
which is that, should a drive failure occur, the least used programs in
memory are most drastically affected. Unfortunately, in the case of a
drastic drive failure in a standalone server, one of the most likely
programs to be affected is getty, disallowing you from manually logging in.

However, the footprint of getty is rather small, so its chance to run is higher
than an idle bigger task (dbus, resmgr, hal, perhaps cron or X)

RAID-0 swap is not the thing to run if reliability is a must, clearly. Interestingly, after a long fight with poor RAID-5 write speed, I moved my swap to RAID-10, only to find that recovery disks don't know how to use it. Tried Fedora and then a live CD (puppy, I think).

Detail on the RAID-5 performance thing in the linux-raid archives, won't rehash here.
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at