| 1 |
On Friday 02 April 2010 14:45:29 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Freitag 02 April 2010, meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> [10-04-02 14:08]: |
| 4 |
> > > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 13:04:53 +0200, meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > only to be sure to have understood everything correctly: |
| 6 |
> > > > Suggestion is to create for example one root partition and a swap |
| 7 |
> > > > partion. And I will create on big "rest of the disk"-partition. |
| 8 |
> > > > The last one will be subdivided with LVM into portions as needed. |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > Yes. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > > Since the last big partition is big due to physical reasons (not for |
| 13 |
> > > > logical one): What will happen, if -- for example -- one portion will |
| 14 |
> > > > be not unmounted cleanly and while booting/checking fails to recover? |
| 15 |
> > > > Are all others damaged/lost? |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > No, because the failure you describe is at the filesystem level. Even |
| 18 |
> > > the volume containing that filesystem will retain integrity, only the |
| 19 |
> > > filesystem itself will be corrupted. As you have left free space on |
| 20 |
> > > the volume group, you can just create a new volume, format it and copy |
| 21 |
> > > over everything you can recover from the broken filesystem before |
| 22 |
> > > deleting it. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > Hi Neil, |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > yes, sounds good, very good. |
| 27 |
> > Last question: How heavy is the performance impact of such a setup ? |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> seriously lvm sounds nice. But it isn't. It easily breaks. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Can you back that up with some facts? I use LVM on many machines and have |
| 32 |
never had it breaks. I'm also quite ruthless on some machines with how I use |
| 33 |
it - manipulating volumes with apparently gay abandon. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I attribute this lack of failure to me understanding how LVm works and using |
| 36 |
it as designed, without trying to be cute and/or clever. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> You want a save setup? Go raid5 or raid6. As a bonus - you can get more |
| 39 |
> space if you need it by just adding another disk. And you are not |
| 40 |
> depending on some complex stuff to get it working. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
The various raid levels do not address the problem that LVM solves - how to |
| 43 |
rapidly create and manipulate sub-volumes. If your /var/log fills up, how |
| 44 |
would you add an extra 10G to it to gain breathing space without using |
| 45 |
something LVM-like (evms is for example LVM-like. So are the native HP-UX |
| 46 |
tools)? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives