From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nf06q-0001sT-8X for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:07:13 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6EC64E17FE for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:07:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail2.pcorp.com.au (mail2.pcorp.com.au [150.101.72.19]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B197AE19D3 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.pcorp.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07CAA1074060 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:53:44 +0930 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.pcorp.com.au Received: from mail2.pcorp.com.au ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.pcorp.com.au [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 144tmTlaUEzf; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:53:43 +0930 (CST) Received: from [172.16.0.52] (unknown [172.16.0.52]) by mail2.pcorp.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82CAB107405C for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:53:43 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 1-Terabyte drives - 4K sector sizes? -> bar performance so far From: Iain Buchanan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <201002090847.40385.joost@antarean.org> References: <5bdc1c8b1002070827i14f59047k39a695900ebe9889@mail.gmail.com> <4B705D6B.1090803@gmail.com> <58965d8a1002081234n97b4b5apa88e262dc53b3d9a@mail.gmail.com> <201002090847.40385.joost@antarean.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:52:31 +0930 Message-ID: <1265757751.3193.23.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: d49a2824-9c52-45ec-9dbf-cd3e7ca799d1 X-Archives-Hash: babde27f857f362d00231ed60d655b8e On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:47 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote: > I now only need to figure out the best way to configure LVM over this to get > the best performance from it. Does anyone know of a decent way of figuring > this out? > I got 6 disks in Raid-5. why LVM? Planning on changing partition size later? LVM is good for (but not limited to) non-raid setups where you want one partition over a number of disks. If you have RAID 5 however, don't you just get one large disk out of it? In which case you could just create x partitions. You can always use parted to resize / move them later. IMHO recovery from tiny boot disks is easier without LVM too. -- Iain Buchanan Failure is not an option -- it comes bundled with Windows.