| 1 |
On 06/11/2009 04:52 PM, Mike Kazantsev wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:17:37 +0300 |
| 3 |
> Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> It's only there where's disk activity. For example, if I have 4 or more |
| 6 |
>> torrents downloading. When that happens, typing "mc" (to start midnight |
| 7 |
>> commander) needs about 4 seconds. It's almost instant without LVM. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> The speed impact on one of my servers (100+ shell users) was dramatic. |
| 10 |
>> 10 seconds for a simple "ls /" for example. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It's not like LVM is modelling the universe' operation on your CPU, but |
| 13 |
> that's where impact should be, while disk activity (and data written) |
| 14 |
> should be roughly the same, aside from possible fragmentation if you |
| 15 |
> (re)create lv's on a daily basis, so prehaps it's not the disk but the |
| 16 |
> cpu where's the real bottleneck is? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I know it's not the CPU since there's 'top' to check this. |
Archives