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 swapping going on and a drive failed, it > could be catastrophic, but that's the only reason I can see. And this > may be more than enough reason... I wonder what the overhead for that > it though?
That is the reason. The idea is that if a drive fails I can still shutdown gracefully, pop in a new drive (until SATA is hot-swap), reboot into the degraded raid1 (in single if /home is not also on raid1), reformat the drive, and get the raid1 resyncing. I haven't noticed any overhead, although I have on GB of ram and actually haven't swapped yet. Swap is just there in case and for /tmp on tmpfs which won't be any more overhead than having /tmp on raid1. > > [...] > > > > 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)? > > > > certainly seems workable to me, but I don't really know about these > things too much. Certainly, though (depending on how big your swap > is), 20G is enough for the system. > Is 20 G overkill? Would 15 G be fine? The risk is that if I guess too small, one can't extend a raid1, I'd have to make another raid1 and add it or some such gymnastics. In this case, drive space is cheap. I eventually want to get into video editing, watching TV and movies, and Lyx. I don't know how much disk space they use. How much does a fully loaded system take (I've never before had the horsepower to bother with such stuff). Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
