On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:08:22PM +0300, Michael Iatrou wrote: > When the date was Monday 20 April 2009, Sam Kuper wrote: > > > Michael, > > [snip] > > I don't think there is a silver bullet for this. > > There is a performance penalty related to soft-RAID. Also swappiness > configuration must be taken into account. Physical memory and memory usage > patterns from application perspective count too. And of course the required > availability for the application is an important factor. > > All I am saying is that when thorough evaluation of parameters like the > above is out of scope, there is probably no good reason to have swap on > RAID. with the cost of hd's being so low, I would suggest the default should be swap on a raid1 > -- Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO (or Linux) is the answer. (Taken from a .signature from someone from the UK, source unknown)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature