<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi, I had raid0 my swap partitions, but in my experience, it causes a
kernel panic in case of failure of 1 disk. I assume crashing depends on
what is using that swap space at the moment of failure.<br>
On the other hand, if swap is on raid1, crashing of 1 disk doesn't
affect the correct functioning of the machine.<br>
<br>
Ciao<br>
Simone<br>
<br>
Francois Caen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid58cfe2840504190815636a0993@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 4/19/05, Joshua Baker-LePain <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jlb17@duke.edu"><jlb17@duke.edu></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If you want the system to survive losing a disk (i.e. it stays up until
you shut it down to swap the disk (if you don't have hot swap)), you
must RAID all partitions, including swap. In a ks.cfg, it looks something
like this:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The reason I don't softraid1 my swaps is that the default behavior is
striping a-la-raid0 if you have multiple swaps. At least that's my
understanding of it.
You guys bring up a good point in case of drive failure. I never
tested it. Do you guys know what happens if the swaps are not
softraid1? Does the kernel panic or something of the like? Or does it
survive and just operate on less swapspace?
Francois
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CentOS@centos.org">CentOS@centos.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos">http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>