| 1 |
On Thursday 24 March 2011 08:49:52 J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, March 23, 2011 5:43 pm, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wednesday 23 March 2011 14:04:23 Mr. Jarry wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> > And if you don't care about barriers, jfs might be a good choice. |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> Knowing nothing about "barriers" I tried to find some info and |
| 10 |
> >> came accross this article: |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/tip/Deciding-when-to-use-L |
| 13 |
> >> inux-f ile-system-barriers |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> It says, barriers can not work with device mapper (raid, lvm). |
| 16 |
> >> If it is true (?) then because of having all partitions in raid1 (md), |
| 17 |
> >> I need not worry about barriers. Whatever filesystem I picked out, |
| 18 |
> >> I could not use barriers... |
| 19 |
> >> |
| 20 |
> >> Jarry |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > md raid devices can do barriers. Don't know about lvm. But lvm is such a |
| 23 |
> > can |
| 24 |
> > of worms I am surprised people still recommend it. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> What is wrong with LVM? |
| 27 |
> I've been using it successfully without any issues for years now. |
| 28 |
> It does what it says on the box. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
it is another layer that can go wrong. Why take the risk? There |
| 33 |
are enough cases of breakage after upgrades - and besides snapshots... is the |
| 34 |
amount of additional code running really worth it? Especially with bind |
| 35 |
mounting? |
Archives