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 <gentoo-user+bounces-120848-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1Q2oDy-0005yw-DM
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:21:30 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 525AA1C01B;
Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:19:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-gw0-f53.google.com (mail-gw0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 215E71C01B
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:19:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by gwb15 with SMTP id 15so116152gwb.40
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=kLOVvB23v4SRwVbauHP4jbX+sjTskEbL3Dgx13pmZ7U=;
b=dh8W3mwdQjHVI2nb7mM5iMchztMiuKNM5S7I3l5pEKA2r7KHp9h9L5Gkyxt1LaZ1FU
aG8NoK0mP/FwhI7pyFgAx0BgHFFNNF0yfR1ZLbWHQC7ojfgbF4cdR6nvy+x2gtJa21jv
65PZiOXaKqoS3Q0xLSvd26uKjRA+pQX9eyZZY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
b=VYYRDdy1peiIZvtcQy5Q2u/OENT+OepQbouesO/gpN0oB1M7vkdXYrjnHc8ZzPeJC4
uOETsIhg6U8lhJz7DCeWfzANtHJCurGYXFYBrYU2dg5u615gjGdUwfU2Bsq4sQACA1V7
l9AlI0AHXBJU21SEk8LvcQzbSNFYXp8jGIdiU=
Received: by 10.100.46.2 with SMTP id t2mr187770ant.87.1300987182523;
Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-0-90-60.jan.bellsouth.net [65.0.90.60])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 35sm112509ano.37.2011.03.24.10.19.40
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4D8B7D2B.90708@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:19:39 -0500
From: Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.17) Gecko/20110321 Gentoo/2.0.12 SeaMonkey/2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] LVM (Was: the best filesystem for server: XFS or
JFS (or?))
References: <4D87A7C6.1060502@gmail.com> <4d8a231d.4b0fdf0a.17b1.0d0f@mx.google.com> <6cb4ed45cc29b7658a628225a6f2bc53.squirrel@www.antarean.org> <4d8b2b5b.984cdf0a.1c4c.ffff8432@mx.google.com> <321afabe36c26434f77c63b6e30e0a83.squirrel@www.antarean.org>
In-Reply-To: <321afabe36c26434f77c63b6e30e0a83.squirrel@www.antarean.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: 3bbd8d888057414ab57c1595fda36958
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
:-) :-)