From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jun 25 06:43:04 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68AD16A49E
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 25 Jun 2006 06:43:04 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from lists-freebsd@silverwraith.com)
Received: from pear.silverwraith.com (pear.silverwraith.com [69.12.167.160])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB6143D68
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 25 Jun 2006 06:43:03 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from lists-freebsd@silverwraith.com)
Received: from avleen by pear.silverwraith.com with local (Exim 4.61 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <lists-freebsd@silverwraith.com>) id 1FuOKl-000LZB-Dh
	for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 23:43:03 -0700
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 23:43:03 -0700
From: Avleen Vig <lists-freebsd@silverwraith.com>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20060625064303.GR19592@silverwraith.com>
References: <449D8616.5040306@tamara-b.org>
	<17565.37706.966913.737964@bhuda.mired.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <17565.37706.966913.737964@bhuda.mired.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Subject: Re: A New FreeBSD Server
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 06:43:04 -0000

On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 03:32:26PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> Why not RAID your swap? The extra reliability might not be worth very
> much, but the extra performance couldn't hurt - unless you don't plan
> on swapping at all. This is enough of a win that the swap subsystem
> will interleave swap usage across multiple drives, a facility that
> predates RAID. If you just split your swap across multiple drives, you
> get RAID0 behavior from swap.

Really? I thought it was possible to interleave multiple swap devices.
I'm probably wrong, but I thought I remembered seeing 'interleaved'
somewhere. Maybe my definition of interleaved is differented from
someone elses :-)