| 1 |
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 01:22:31 Iain Buchanan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:47 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I now only need to figure out the best way to configure LVM over this to |
| 4 |
> > get the best performance from it. Does anyone know of a decent way of |
| 5 |
> > figuring this out? |
| 6 |
> > I got 6 disks in Raid-5. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> why LVM? Planning on changing partition size later? LVM is good for |
| 9 |
> (but not limited to) non-raid setups where you want one partition over a |
| 10 |
> number of disks. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If you have RAID 5 however, don't you just get one large disk out of it? |
| 13 |
> In which case you could just create x partitions. You can always use |
| 14 |
> parted to resize / move them later. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> IMHO recovery from tiny boot disks is easier without LVM too. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
General observation (not saying that Iain is wrong): |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
You use RAID to get redundancy, data integrity and performance. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You use lvm to get flexibility, ease of maintenance and the ability to create |
| 24 |
volumes larger than any single disk or array. And do it at a reasonable price. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
These two things have nothing to do with each other and must be viewed as |
| 27 |
such. There are places where RAID and lvm seem to overlap, where one might |
| 28 |
think that a feature of one can be used to replace the other. But both really |
| 29 |
suck in these overlaps and are not very good at them. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Bottom line: don't try and use RAID or LVM to do $STUFF outside their core |
| 32 |
functions. They each do one thing and do it well. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives