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 1Q30hJ-0001m4-0a for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:40:37 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B65181C016; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:39:14 +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 7E24F1C016 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:39:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.34.141] (helo=smtp10.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq1.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q30fx-0005e7-T9 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:39:13 +0100 Received: from 5353c7ed.cm-6-4d.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([83.83.199.237] helo=data.antarean.org) by smtp10.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q30fx-0007VR-6l for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:39:13 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6567241D for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:40:07 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at antarean.org Received: from data.antarean.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (data.antarean.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XejESyeakHXI for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:40:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from eve.localnet (eve.lan.antarean.org [10.20.13.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9874B1085 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:40:07 +0100 (CET) From: Joost Roeleveld To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] LVM (Was: the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:39:12 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/4.6 beta4 (Linux/2.6.36-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.6.1; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <4D8B7D2B.90708@gmail.com> References: <4D87A7C6.1060502@gmail.com> <321afabe36c26434f77c63b6e30e0a83.squirrel@www.antarean.org> <4D8B7D2B.90708@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-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20110325064007.E6567241D@data.antarean.org> X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-ID: 1Q30fx-0007VR-6l X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-SpamCheck: geen spam, SpamAssassin (niet cached, score=-0.851, vereist 5, BAYES_00 -1.90, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.98, TW_LV 0.08, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.01) X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-From: joost@antarean.org X-Spam-Status: No X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 367348d723eca1c35acf6f0a6bbc7e8b On Thursday 24 March 2011 12:19:39 Dale wrote: > J. Roeleveld wrote: > > On Thu, March 24, 2011 12:30 pm, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > >> On Thursday 24 March 2011 08:49:52 J. Roeleveld wrote: > >>> On Wed, March 23, 2011 5:43 pm, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > >>>> md raid devices can do barriers. Don't know about lvm. But lvm is > >>>> such > >>> > >>> a > >>> > >>>> can > >>>> of worms I am surprised people still recommend it. > >>> > >>> What is wrong with LVM? > >>> I've been using it successfully without any issues for years now. > >>> It does what it says on the box. > >> > >> it is another layer that can go wrong. Why take the risk? There > >> are enough cases of breakage after upgrades - and besides snapshots... > >> is the > >> amount of additional code running really worth it? Especially with > >> bind > >> mounting? > > > > There are always things that can go wrong and I agree, adding additional > > layers can increase the risk. > > However, the benefits of easily and quickly changing the size of > > partitions and creating snapshots for the use of backups are a big > > enough > > benefit to off-set the risk. > > > > Bind-mounting is ok, if you use a single filesystem for everything. I > > have partitions that are filled with thousands of small files and > > partitions filled with files are are, on average, at 1GB in size. > > I haven't found a filesystem yet that successfully handles both of these > > with identical performance. > > When I first tested performance I found that a simple "ls" in a > > partition > > would appear to just hang. This caused performance issues with my > > IMAP-server. > > I switched to a filesystem that better handles large amounts of small > > files and performance increased significantly. > > > > The way I do backups is that I stop the services, create snapshots and > > then restart the services. > > I then have plenty of time to backup the snapshot. > > If I were to do this differently, I'd end up having a downtime for over > > an hour just for a backup. > > Now, it's barely a minute of downtime. > > > > That, to me, is a very big bonus. > > > > -- > > Joost > > I have never used LVM but when it messes up after a upgrade, as has > happened to many others, see if you say the same thing. I hope your > backups are good and they can restore. > > Dale > > :-) :-) Backups are good and I can restore. Usually need them when I mess things up and accidentally delete files I wanted to keep.... LVM may mess up if something goes wrong, but as the LVM-tools backup the metadata for LVM, it is trivial to restore and I have not lost any data because of issues like that. :) -- Joost