On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:32:07AM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > There is the question of whether the RAID manager is smart enough to > just read off the smaller drive when the larger is otherwise > occupied. If the other drive is busy reading/writing to a partition the RAID controller does not care about then... the RAID controller does not care about :) and will merrily schedule balance the requests. > Any other problems you can put your finger on or is it > just an intuitive thing? > > > Hmm... it's not worth to put a 80 gig HDD to work just because the > > kernel feels like distributing the 2 megs it has to swap. Leave only > > data on the 80 gigs and it will sleep when appropriate while the 20 > > gigger will be still busy with cron jobs and other maintenance. > > ...assuming your drives are set to go to sleep. Just like the > 'should you turn your computer off at night?' debate, though, there's > the question of whether increased stress from starting and stopping > the drive will shorten its life significantly, so many of us leave > our drives spinning at all times. If you have yours sleep, though, > then I agree that you should make sure that they're not going be get > woken up just for swap. I do let my computer up all the time, but the harddrives go to sleep after one hour of inactivity. And I do not have any hopes of my current IDE drives to work for more than 3-4 years. OTOH the SCSI drives in my sparcs were made in '94-'95 and I bet they haven't been unplugged for more than a month since they left the factory. /me knocks on wood. florin -- "If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is." 41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6 03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20020319/43b0e128/attachment.pgp