Re: RAID & Swap.

["Aaron D. Turner" <aturner@best.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


I think Jason has some good points.  I'll do what he says- two swap
partitions, only one active.  We'll just watch the system.  If we start
swapping regularly, I'll hit up VA for more RAM.  I don't think we'll have
a problem getting more if we show a need.

Anyways, last night I just crashed when I got home from work (this cold is
killing me) so I didn't get anything done.  I don't think I'm going to go
skiing this weekend- I'm too much at risk of getting bronchitis for the
bazillionth time, which will give me plenty of time to re-install the OS
root RAID style.

My goal has been to get the box installed at VA this weekend, but I wasn't
planning on reinstalling the OS 5 times to get this RAID thing right
either.  I'll have a feel for it thursday-ish.  I've also got to plan the
install with NaviSite, so that might hang things up a little as well.
More info as I get it.

- -- 
Aaron Turner           | Either which way, one half dozen or another. 
aturner@pobox.com      | Check out the Red Hat Linux User's FAQ Online!
www.pobox.com/~aturner | http://www.pobox.com/~aturner/RedHat-FAQ/
All emails from this account are PGP signed.  Lack of a signature is "bad".
PGP Key fingerprint = FB E1 CE ED 57 E4 AB 80  59 6E 60 BF 45 1B 20 E8


On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Jason Pincin wrote:

> > The decision we need to make is 256MB of RAM good enough for now, or do we
> > want to put the swap partitions on unmirrored partitions (single point of
> > failure).
> 
> Not having swap scares me.  I'm just concerned that t some point we may have a
> massive influx of activity that would take the box to a ram level it otherwise
> wouldn't reach, beyond 256 or 512 or whatever... and boom.  Down we go.
> 
> > IMHO, we're better off not running any swap partitions and just hitting up
> > VA for more RAM if/when we need it.  Maybe I'm being paranoid (after all
> > what's the real chance that one of those disks will fail??? not likely),
> 
> Those disks aren't likely to fail.  And if one does bringing it back up will be as
> simple as bringing it up after we've lost the root partition.
> 
> I say throw a 128MB swap partition on both drives.  Can't you have more than one
> swap partition?  If you activate both at the same time though, either disk failing
> will bring the box down.  Just activate the one living on the disk that contains
> the live root partition.  Leave the 128MB swap partiton on the other drive
> inactive, and only activate it when we need to bring the box up on the other disk.  
> 
> What do you think?  I know this makes us more vulnerable to a disk crash... but
> aren't we already with an unmirrored root?
> 
> Lemme know your thoughts.
> Jason
> 
> 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBNpKfRjM3jpXy1kJtAQFqbAP/b2fncsDpLuSFDIO0uM8XdyMHzXtraH2N
bVgok2+n1H6FQqyMiB8xJ7BRnyhthk6ZhMzbXyA21PMMOBgiJJ1hbrbgoQb4aR9G
nPOEbPquMMW+7TSTqlXhF3E9jGOfufOShKmBz+qUMLkkuOnFysMaQQfmsbLGaG68
dvKaXrQx5V8=
=I2/s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----