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 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 ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:19:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gwb15 with SMTP id 15so116152gwb.40 for ; 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 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: 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 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 :-) :-)