SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] Increasing RAM
- To: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] Increasing RAM
- From: Daniel Pittman <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:44:09 +1000
- Organization: I know I put it down here, somewhere.
- User-agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)
Kyle <kl@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> First, this would be vastly easier if you used LVM, since that makes
>> allocating space on the fly a universe easier.
> Re LVM;
> Maybe, but the last machine I had I ran LVM. I had a hard enough time
> remembering which volume belonged to which group belonged to which
> disk (and that despite naming them along the lines of;
> 'lv00Grp00Hda1', lv01Grp00Hda1').
My immediate response to that is "why would you bother?"
The only case I can think of where it would matter are wanting to have
specific partitions on specific disk sets, for performance, which you
can rediscover fairly easily if you actually need to.
I also note that you don't seem to have enough disks in this machine to
make that a concern.
Presumably, though, I have missed something, since you obviously had
reasons for wanting to know that information. Could you explain them,
because I would like to understand what I, um, don't understand. :)
> So this time I figured I'd simplify my life somewhat. I have all the
> necessary conf and data files, etc regularly backed up so if it does
> go down, it shouldn't be TOO MUCH hassle to get it all back.
LVM is only a convenience saver, not a backup of any sort, so this would
be good practice anyway.
> It is RAID 1. And if I understand Daniel correctly;
> "... you probably want to match the RAID setup underneath your swap to
> the setup underneath your data devices. .."
> You mean I should have the swap spread across the RAID as well.
Well, at the moment you have RAID 1 under everything except for swap,
which you have on a RAID 0 array. (Implemented, in this case, through
the Linux kernel balancing swap space use when areas have equal
priority, as your two separate partitions do.)
That also means that when a disk fails it will potentially take out a
block of swap with no recourse, and that you will have to manually swap
off the physical device to replace it.
> I'm pretty certain that how it is as the m'board controls the RAID of
> the 2 disks. I just installed on the one array for the OS. Either
> way, it's too late now.
It isn't, really: you could just turn those two swap partitions into a
software RAID array like the rest of your data, but RAID 1 rather than
RAID 0. :)
> In short, on the advice of all, I just wont bother with increasing
> SWAP. I'll just dump in the RAM and see what happens.
That shouldn't be a big drama.
> What's bugging me more now is trying to get bloody Ubuntu to recognise
> and operate my old Linksys-Broadcom Wireless PCI card. But that's a
> whole nother story.
You might want to post the details somewhere, see if someone can help. :)