| 1 |
Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Saturday 17 September 2011 12:34:54 Dale wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Does LVM make the heads move around more or anything like that? I'm |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > just thinking it would depending on what lv are on what drives. I |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > dunno, just curious. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I haven't thought about that, but my first impression is that LVM |
| 14 |
> won't make any great difference. The data get stored where the data |
| 15 |
> get stored, if you see what I mean. How they're organised is in the |
| 16 |
> implementation layers. (Am I making sense? It's getting late here.) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> -- |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Rgds |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23 |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Yea, I see the point. I was even thinking that if LVM is on multiple |
| 29 |
drives and the a lv was spanned across two or more drives, then it could |
| 30 |
even be faster. Data spanned across two or more drives could result in |
| 31 |
it reading more data faster since both drives are collecting data at |
| 32 |
about the same time. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
But then again, it depends on how the data is spread out too. I guess |
| 35 |
it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Dale |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
:-) :-) |
Archives