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 1Q31Iv-000627-CB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:19:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97B101C088; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:17:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f53.google.com (mail-fx0-f53.google.com [209.85.161.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223821C088 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm8 with SMTP id 8so217233fxm.40 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:17:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:from:to:subject:date:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=slLk+AdW2RvLpO0snAAE8sx2cm/WwuKGVkrSTgcgL44=; b=L+S1+RpFZy1i9EXK0+Pk2GJHfWx8jQ2mQ79huN3IBqRJL+zkD0JYWF8lHqN9ObJl0Y NRrLPPx725LYU3xldy6+3OYst++Twi90cTrotfFH7k6xUC4kUz5CLcOznZ/ikTxotDSO rkD7nFO9TItzASAntnyHST5mUa+xuD6065Z78= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; b=SHSrfX6bt62qv7C1KVzaVjLCX7CWjRnFhSLmz0OyWHC5LlzwGqta6/u6iDAOAo40/Z hxKnQwcdzrJ3IzMTV15dlVxqsxbCBDS5enLTeP77uEHc4//KZXzu+xBEGfPg9vBYobaF +nQ45DJ+kizxOaET1DKQOorwuYnidCSEbokZE= Received: by 10.223.7.73 with SMTP id c9mr461070fac.117.1301037462254; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:17:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from energy.localnet (p4FC74ABE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.199.74.190]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e17sm263368fak.0.2011.03.25.00.17.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:17:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4d8c4195.114ddf0a.07b5.173b@mx.google.com> From: Volker Armin Hemmann 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 08:17:39 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/4.6 beta4 (Linux/2.6.36.4r4; KDE/4.6.1; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20110325065209.6DC9A241D@data.antarean.org> References: <4D87A7C6.1060502@gmail.com> <4d8bb292.8461df0a.57dd.0ee1@mx.google.com> <20110325065209.6DC9A241D@data.antarean.org> 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" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 75d97887cc84dc43046fb10477587c7a On Friday 25 March 2011 07:51:13 Joost Roeleveld wrote: > On Thursday 24 March 2011 22:07:28 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > On Thursday 24 March 2011 12:08:02 Alan McKinnon wrote: > > > On Thursday 24 March 2011 12:19:39 Dale wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > What is this "mess up after an upgrade" of which you speak? > > > > > > I've used multiple versions of LVM on multiple machines across > > > multiple > > > distros for multiple years and never once heard of anyone having a > > > problem with it let along experienced one myself. > > > > > > Shades of FUD methinks. > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=lvm > > > or if you like a bit of history: > Not all of these are LVM, some are only shown because they're related to > llvm (Which is a virtual machine), but lets ignore those all-together :) I know, I am just too lazy to do a more 'sophisticated' search. > > On the first page, at first glance, I don't see any serious ones that are > only LVM. > The boot-issue was caused by genkernel not being up-to-date with > name-changes. > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=ALL+lvm > > there you go. > > See above see above. But if you look only at the lvm bugs there are enough examples of bad kernel/lvm/whatever interaction. It does not matter that it was baselayout or another update that stopped lvm from working. If your system does not boot it does not boot - lvm seems to make that more likely. > > > I like this one: > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=350455 > > Looks like an issue with heavy I/O, affecting the LVM layer trying to lock > the filesystem. > > But I wonder if he's not running into a known issue (which can easily be > worked around) where pvmove has a memory-leak with the reporting. (eg. the > bit that checks the progress every 5 seconds, reducing that to every 5 > minutes significantly reduces that) > However, I do believe this (mem-leak) was fixed. > > Am curious what the result will be of that. Please note, I do not run masked > (~amd64) kernels. oh, even better, a memory leak. pvmove even. I remember one bug where a commenter mentioned that pvmove nuked all data on a non-lvm partition. Great stuff. It does not matter that you might not run 'unstable' kernels. Some people like to be a bit more update for very valid reasons (drivers). With lvms history that doesn't look so good.