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 1MEkkd-0003Um-Ve for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:55:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C6740E0429; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:55:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f223.google.com (mail-bw0-f223.google.com [209.85.218.223]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84063E0429 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:55:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz23 with SMTP id 23so1322092bwz.34 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:55:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=vzyemzJEA6fxwbIltpx3hYY2RPBnx8ojvdrzjut5e58=; b=Gcgf8jw5EtQQ35iqO2mcm/MrhEYiPm/NVSe2tFOqKK/Neg0LvB+SO1UwCH+0xt5D+D 0XfYY2Rj4BkgbMd34hpiJWqmyAA+xWvDd8GEr2i/0+lgu3F4Qbi1c4ATkx0Zm94FmDeu az7/SEmmOsjIGFyUJVPFigG7oxpvfD5oGFf/A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=wZ3iw4r/i58VovPEmKvmN10Px2JK2ag51XjYqMTydxrvByEHhF3Lw9UMbeiP1478zL T8cKmsvzW7f1rK+BU910+sKyICMwA1q7+Rk2snlzC2J75/soyy8lFhMf7z6laMom4mXW oGZIz4O38DCK0TgnbY36MYn5/QeHXSzh1BSKs= Received: by 10.103.241.5 with SMTP id t5mr1328300mur.127.1244728524623; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:55:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from coercion ([91.191.238.58]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y6sm195284mug.10.2009.06.11.06.55.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:52:49 +0600 From: Mike Kazantsev To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Lost free space on / Message-ID: <20090611195250.01c6bb7b@coercion> In-Reply-To: References: <200906110906.44497.dirk.heinrichs@online.de> <200906110940.24882.dirk.heinrichs@online.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.1 (GTK+ 2.16.1; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/e2wzq.pUdB0gVmtWSb1y=LM"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 7c5f1c83-7379-459c-a24d-1f97c6e5be02 X-Archives-Hash: 45cae88d63cd5b9db012f0965e759288 --Sig_/e2wzq.pUdB0gVmtWSb1y=LM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:17:37 +0300 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > It's only there where's disk activity. For example, if I have 4 or more= =20 > torrents downloading. When that happens, typing "mc" (to start midnight= =20 > commander) needs about 4 seconds. It's almost instant without LVM. >=20 > The speed impact on one of my servers (100+ shell users) was dramatic.=20 > 10 seconds for a simple "ls /" for example. It's not like LVM is modelling the universe' operation on your CPU, but that's where impact should be, while disk activity (and data written) should be roughly the same, aside from possible fragmentation if you (re)create lv's on a daily basis, so prehaps it's not the disk but the cpu where's the real bottleneck is? --=20 Mike Kazantsev // fraggod.net --Sig_/e2wzq.pUdB0gVmtWSb1y=LM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoxDDYACgkQASbOZpzyXnGavgCaAv95CJdfM/BAqU6pKsoYhWRo SPoAnAnY4tTrsMV2NdmO5tjn5a9gtRb4 =n3fR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/e2wzq.pUdB0gVmtWSb1y=LM--