| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:51:03 +0700 |
| 3 |
> Pandu Poluan<pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Sep 19, 2011 11:12 AM, "Dale"<rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> On Saturday 17 September 2011 12:34:54 Dale wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>> Does LVM make the heads move around more or anything like that? |
| 11 |
>>>>> I'm |
| 12 |
>>>>> just thinking it would depending on what lv are on what drives. I |
| 13 |
>>>>> dunno, just curious. |
| 14 |
>>>> |
| 15 |
>>>> I haven't thought about that, but my first impression is that LVM |
| 16 |
>>>> won't |
| 17 |
>> make any great difference. The data get stored where the data get |
| 18 |
>> stored, if you see what I mean. How they're organised is in the |
| 19 |
>> implementation layers. (Am I making sense? It's getting late here.) |
| 20 |
>>>> |
| 21 |
>>>> -- |
| 22 |
>>>> |
| 23 |
>>>> Rgds |
| 24 |
>>>> |
| 25 |
>>>> Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23 |
| 26 |
>>>> |
| 27 |
>>>> |
| 28 |
>>> |
| 29 |
>>> Yea, I see the point. I was even thinking that if LVM is on |
| 30 |
>>> multiple |
| 31 |
>> drives and the a lv was spanned across two or more drives, then it |
| 32 |
>> could even be faster. Data spanned across two or more drives could |
| 33 |
>> result in it reading more data faster since both drives are |
| 34 |
>> collecting data at about the same time. |
| 35 |
>>> But then again, it depends on how the data is spread out too. I |
| 36 |
>>> guess it |
| 37 |
>> is six of one and half a dozen of the other. |
| 38 |
>> I'm not sure if LVM by itself implement striping. Most likely not |
| 39 |
>> because LVM usually starts with 1 HD then gets additional PVs added. |
| 40 |
>> Plus there's the possibility that the second PV has a different size. |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>> I might be wrong, though, since all my experience with LVM involves |
| 43 |
>> only one drive. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> LVM does do striping according to the man page. I've never tried it, |
| 46 |
> mostly because LVM is the wrong place to do that IMHO. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Use RAID for that instead and leave LVM to do what it's good at - |
| 49 |
> managing storage volumes |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
What I was thinking about is this. You have two drives that is one lv. |
| 54 |
It has to be data stored on both drives at some point. Example, you |
| 55 |
have a data base that is 500Gbs. You have two drives that are 300Gbs |
| 56 |
each that are in the same lv. Well obviously 200Gbs has to be on a |
| 57 |
different drive. Isn't that striping which would would result in a |
| 58 |
speed increase? |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Now if it is like me and is only one drive, then that won't happen. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Dale |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
:-) :-) |
Archives