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 1NfAFQ-0002R5-2L for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:56:44 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4430FE0A85; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:56:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpq1.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq1.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.34.164]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0079CE0A85 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:56:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.34.145] (helo=smtp14.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq1.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NfAFC-0007bX-I7 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:56:30 +0100 Received: from 5353258a.cable.casema.nl ([83.83.37.138] helo=data.hosts.antarean.org) by smtp14.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NfAFB-0007Ae-AF for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:56:29 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by data.hosts.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A889827EE4 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:56:28 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at antarean.org Received: from data.hosts.antarean.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (data.hosts.antarean.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vFNwD0dsRHp9 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:56:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from eve.localnet (eve.hosts.antarean.org [10.1.5.100]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.hosts.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A8B724C27 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:56:28 +0100 (CET) From: "J. Roeleveld" 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 11:56:28 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.3 (Linux/2.6.30-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.3.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <5bdc1c8b1002070827i14f59047k39a695900ebe9889@mail.gmail.com> <1265757751.3193.23.camel@localhost> <201002100908.44786.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201002100908.44786.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> 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: <201002101156.28209.joost@antarean.org> X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-ID: 1NfAFB-0007Ae-AF X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-SpamCheck: geen spam, SpamAssassin (niet cached, score=-2.522, vereist 5, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -2.60, TW_LV 0.08) X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-From: joost@antarean.org X-Spam-Status: No X-Archives-Salt: 5c2de7eb-357c-4240-a648-cda6a54440ea X-Archives-Hash: f705de5504a2fba74d27e0327876b7c2 On Wednesday 10 February 2010 08:08:44 Alan McKinnon wrote: > 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. > I completely agree with this. RAID is for redundancy (Loose a disk, and the system will keep running) LVM is for flexibility (Resizing/moving partitions using parted or similar takes time during which the whole system is unusable) With LVM, I can resize a partition while it is actually in use (eg. write- activities)