1 |
On Friday 21 December 2007, Benjamen R. Meyer wrote: |
2 |
> Galevsky wrote: |
3 |
> > On Dec 20, 2007 10:31 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> >> Unlike commonly perceived wisdom I don't think that LVM is a panacea for |
5 |
> >> all ills, or a necessity as such. It is however bloody convenient, |
6 |
> >> especially on a growing fs. A server that is not expected to change |
7 |
> >> much in size, probably does not need it. On the other hand some servers |
8 |
> >> (file, mail, news servers) are bound to continue to accumulate data and |
9 |
> >> their fs will increase in time. I would argue that the former type of |
10 |
> >> server can happily live in a few primary partitions + 1 extended with a |
11 |
> >> number of logical partitions, if you are going for a multi-partitioned |
12 |
> >> scheme, while the latter type of server will greatly benefit from LVM. |
13 |
> >> Of course, if hard drive redundancy is necessary, then I can't see how |
14 |
> >> you could live without LVM + RAID. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > I understand you on "LVM is not a must for very stable servers", but |
17 |
> > since I can't see any good reason not to use LVM, I see no reason to |
18 |
> > limit your abilities to extended partitions. We have the opportunity |
19 |
> > to be more flexible with LVM, why should we not get it ? To loose the |
20 |
> > ability to extend a partition by adding a new HD without any pain ? I |
21 |
> > mean, if you don't know how to use it, I understand that you may skip |
22 |
> > installing a LVM system, but when you did it once, I see no reason to |
23 |
> > install your new systems without. So, I am interested in your advice |
24 |
> > about LVM is not the universal solution for partitions management, |
25 |
> > since I am sure I have something to learn from you experience. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Agreed. As I said in another e-mail on the list, I use to use extended |
28 |
> partitions - at one point I had about 10 or so partitions on a single |
29 |
> drive (3 primary, the rest from an extended partition). This worked well |
30 |
> under Windows 9x, but was a pain after moving to Linux. It wasn't that I |
31 |
> had mis-scoped the size of the data for those partitions, just that my |
32 |
> needs changed (mainly user related needs, not system related needs), and |
33 |
> managing extended partitions is a lot of work. I very much understand |
34 |
> LVM and what would do for me, and would very much like to hear why |
35 |
> simple extended partitions would be better for any scenario but the most |
36 |
> limited of scenarios where LVM was just not possible (e.g. the system |
37 |
> could not run a kernel that supported LVM; or RAM on the system was too |
38 |
> limited to support running LVM; etc.)...I'm not sure I agree that they |
39 |
> would be. |
40 |
|
41 |
Guys, mine is not any precious experience that you could learn much from (I am |
42 |
sure others on this list have more valuable experience on this matter), but |
43 |
what I am saying is this: |
44 |
|
45 |
If you have a stable, dedicated server which is NOT going to increase in fs |
46 |
size requirements, then a conventional non-LVM installation will do exactly |
47 |
what you need done, in a simpler fashion. To define "simpler" in a server |
48 |
use case, I would say that anything that you do not absolutely need should |
49 |
not be installed (for basic security and maintainability reasons), including |
50 |
LVM kernel modules and what not. On the other hand, installing and |
51 |
maintaining an LVM based fs is clearly not difficult and if you are uncertain |
52 |
about your current/future fs size requirements, then you're better off |
53 |
installing LVM and making use of the flexibility it offers. |
54 |
|
55 |
BTW, if you're thinking of the flexibility of adding drives/partitions and |
56 |
extending LVG's at will, you should also consider that unless you're running |
57 |
a mirror RAID when any-one of your drives goes bang! you will lose all your |
58 |
VG data irrespective on which drive (PV) they reside. Of course, you know |
59 |
this and you keep recent back ups of your data at all times, right? ;-) |
60 |
|
61 |
I can recall at least 4 server installations where I did not run LVM and I |
62 |
never had to increase the fs size (one of them has been running for more than |
63 |
3 years now and it fs is spread over two drives). On the other hand a server |
64 |
I built less than two months ago has LVM and all data (but not its / ) is |
65 |
stored in LVs. I already had to replace a drive on that machine which was |
66 |
suspect for an imminent failure. A case of "horses for courses". |
67 |
|
68 |
Just my 2c's. |
69 |
-- |
70 |
Regards, |
71 |
Mick |