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 1Q2lgK-0001w5-BR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:38:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5283D1C003; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:37:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpq3.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq3.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.42.166]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 178761C003 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:37:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.42.136] (helo=smtp5.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq3.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2ley-0003OA-GK for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:37:12 +0100 Received: from 5353c7ed.cm-6-4d.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([83.83.199.237] helo=data.antarean.org) by smtp5.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2lex-0006RU-PE for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:37:11 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE0130AE for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:38:03 +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 JOWS5u4vKBIc for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:38:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from www.antarean.org (net.antarean.org [10.10.11.5]) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CD61085 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:38:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from 10.10.11.1 (SquirrelMail authenticated user joost) by www.antarean.org with HTTP; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:38:02 +0100 Message-ID: <321afabe36c26434f77c63b6e30e0a83.squirrel@www.antarean.org> In-Reply-To: <4d8b2b5b.984cdf0a.1c4c.ffff8432@mx.google.com> References: <4D87A7C6.1060502@gmail.com> <4d8a231d.4b0fdf0a.17b1.0d0f@mx.google.com> <6cb4ed45cc29b7658a628225a6f2bc53.squirrel@www.antarean.org> <4d8b2b5b.984cdf0a.1c4c.ffff8432@mx.google.com> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:38:02 +0100 Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] LVM (Was: the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)) From: "J. Roeleveld" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21 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 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-ID: 1Q2lex-0006RU-PE 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: 67f4098c3bc2b69a8319f25b24b362fc 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 su= ch >> 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 hav= e 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 a= n hour just for a backup. Now, it's barely a minute of downtime. That, to me, is a very big bonus. -- Joost