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