On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 17:10 -0400, Ken Elliott wrote:
> KE >> That doesn't do what I want.
>
> LT >> Actually, it does. Read closer.
>
> Then we don't understand each other. I re-read it and I am unable to
> understand how your suggestion has anything to do with hard drive fault
> tolerance. It looks like this is a solution to _extend_ the swap space.
> How does this have anything to do with mirroring drives, including the swap
> partition?
Well, I originally said, "in the ultimate, worse case scenario," meaning
your machine is up, but your swap space has crashed and you want zero
down time. Yeah, this has nothing to do with fault tolerance, just a
way to survive, the worse case scenario. Mount a partition -- new or
old and employ the methodology already adumbrated by Matt Moen's
article, to create NEW swap space. Your kernel will use it.
I guess I am focusing on swap and you are focusing on RAID. In this
regard, the RAID is irrelevant. If your swap space has taken a dive,
mount another partition or create a swap file.
Worse case scenario. It works; I have suffered through it with zero
down time.
If you enjoy a plenitude of RAM, I guarantee you'll survive the process:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/3202
The Logan
-- When you look up redundant in the dictionary it says, "see redundant". -- Matt Miller, SLUG List Registered Linux User: 277727
----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 14:42:09 EDT