1 |
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:51:03 +0700 |
2 |
Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sep 19, 2011 11:12 AM, "Dale" <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > Peter Humphrey wrote: |
7 |
> >> |
8 |
> >> On Saturday 17 September 2011 12:34:54 Dale wrote: |
9 |
> >> |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> >> > Does LVM make the heads move around more or anything like that? |
12 |
> >> > I'm |
13 |
> >> |
14 |
> >> > just thinking it would depending on what lv are on what drives. I |
15 |
> >> |
16 |
> >> > dunno, just curious. |
17 |
> >> |
18 |
> >> |
19 |
> >> I haven't thought about that, but my first impression is that LVM |
20 |
> >> won't |
21 |
> make any great difference. The data get stored where the data get |
22 |
> stored, if you see what I mean. How they're organised is in the |
23 |
> implementation layers. (Am I making sense? It's getting late here.) |
24 |
> >> |
25 |
> >> |
26 |
> >> -- |
27 |
> >> |
28 |
> >> Rgds |
29 |
> >> |
30 |
> >> Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23 |
31 |
> >> |
32 |
> >> |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> > |
35 |
> > Yea, I see the point. I was even thinking that if LVM is on |
36 |
> > multiple |
37 |
> drives and the a lv was spanned across two or more drives, then it |
38 |
> could even be faster. Data spanned across two or more drives could |
39 |
> result in it reading more data faster since both drives are |
40 |
> collecting data at about the same time. |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> > But then again, it depends on how the data is spread out too. I |
43 |
> > guess it |
44 |
> is six of one and half a dozen of the other. |
45 |
> > |
46 |
> |
47 |
> I'm not sure if LVM by itself implement striping. Most likely not |
48 |
> because LVM usually starts with 1 HD then gets additional PVs added. |
49 |
> Plus there's the possibility that the second PV has a different size. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> I might be wrong, though, since all my experience with LVM involves |
52 |
> only one drive. |
53 |
|
54 |
|
55 |
LVM does do striping according to the man page. I've never tried it, |
56 |
mostly because LVM is the wrong place to do that IMHO. |
57 |
|
58 |
Use RAID for that instead and leave LVM to do what it's good at - |
59 |
managing storage volumes |
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
Alan McKinnnon |
64 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |