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 1Nf6jF-0003WH-HZ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:11:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2E813E09B5; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com (mail-ew0-f216.google.com [209.85.219.216]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9E0E09B5 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so166034ewy.29 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:10:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=JuccT6dt91f0HKlGjGEXWpzyff/mVwX3yzC43DwtGL4=; b=tALcuArsL+VkZisr3rfgsTbdPB6z7oYPhIuD1LW9cdGxLOrWmmb0UcbPPFQzhLECDA qUB3kFVvTj13dqghr1bdyzqEoDfwj/OZ0Ux3zQ9t8otAwR9iMutcfw+QWr0KyXQXbDd4 pr+u0NrBOh7RyWRKnL0hECrnyak6vi41ZcyoM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=xfhOOtOtk+wN2XeNd0scYE2Uy6ZOGgfTTUuE4CZjyl1C7bQSWETl65XzTAq5HvSfoV SjyDY8ds3R5rUWpuDXCxP+Z+ClAcUbbrK9h8OT87djl0XURa+TQAzljXmPbwqCYyTu5X ygYnwWqYAYMV0fxJRxOBH8FCimRxe9ZP2xX7c= Received: by 10.213.109.92 with SMTP id i28mr863206ebp.63.1265785859262; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:10:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from nazgul.localnet (196-210-238-65.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.210.238.65]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 13sm620489ewy.5.2010.02.09.23.10.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:10:58 -0800 (PST) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 1-Terabyte drives - 4K sector sizes? -> bar performance so far Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:08:44 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.32-zen6; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <5bdc1c8b1002070827i14f59047k39a695900ebe9889@mail.gmail.com> <201002090847.40385.joost@antarean.org> <1265757751.3193.23.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <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 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201002100908.44786.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 4e3f6c81-b09c-4f0b-973e-c47ea11d9d60 X-Archives-Hash: 26c095c8b3504f85ac1a857202a2055f On Wednesday 10 February 2010 01:22:31 Iain Buchanan wrote: > 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. > General observation (not saying that Iain is wrong): You use RAID to get redundancy, data integrity and performance. You use lvm to get flexibility, ease of maintenance and the ability to create volumes larger than any single disk or array. And do it at a reasonable price. These two things have nothing to do with each other and must be viewed as such. There are places where RAID and lvm seem to overlap, where one might think that a feature of one can be used to replace the other. But both really suck in these overlaps and are not very good at them. Bottom line: don't try and use RAID or LVM to do $STUFF outside their core functions. They each do one thing and do it well. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com