Re: LVM questions for FC3

From: Robert Citek (rwcitek_at_alum.calberkeley.org)
Date: 03/31/05

  • Next message: Michael A. Peters: "Re: modem keeps disappearing"
    Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:51:03 -0600
    To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@redhat.com>
    
    

    On Wednesday, Mar 30, 2005, at 19:10 US/Central, Mark wrote:
    > 1. What happens if a LV spans over mutliple hard disks and one of the
    > disks fails while the server is running? Can the server still keep on
    > running on the other disks as long as no data from the broken disk is
    > needed? Or does everything just crash once one of the disks dies? As
    > an extreme case, lets assume the broken disk does not contain any
    > files or directories that are used at all.

    Short answer: you're totally hosed. Long answer: you're somewhere
    between partly hosed and totally hosed. But even if you're partly
    hosed, by the time you fix things and get back up to speed you will
    have wished you had setup a RAID.

    > 2. How big is the performance loss? Obviously, an additional layer in
    > the file system hierarchy does mean additional mapping and handling,
    > meaning additional processor usage, meaning performance loss. In most
    > cases this probably does not matter, but what if I use the server for
    > example as a mysql database server?

    You're running a server. You want data redundancy. You want
    performance. Sounds like you want at a minimum RAID-5 and possibly
    RAID-10. LVM gives you none of the above. The only thing LVM gives
    you is flexibility in how you manage your disk space, the ease with
    which you can create/reduce/enlarge/remove virtual partitions, i.e.
    logical volumes.

    But the best way to answer your questions is to actually setup a test
    system and experiment with it. You don't even need a system with
    multiple drives. Just partition a single disk with a few (at least 3)
    extra partitions of say 200 MB each. Then create the LVM and later
    remove one of the partitions. What do you think will happen? What
    actually does happen? Now repeat, testing for performance.

    And please, let the list know how things go.

    Regards,
    - Robert
    http://www.cwelug.org/downloads
    Help others get OpenSource software. Distribute FLOSS
    for Windows, Linux, *BSD, and MacOS X with BitTorrent

    -- 
    fedora-list mailing list
    fedora-list@redhat.com
    To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
    

  • Next message: Michael A. Peters: "Re: modem keeps disappearing"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Current thoughts on system partitioning
      ... Just to use my specific example, I've built a server with two 160 GB ... disks and installed SuSE 9.2 Pro using YaST2. ... all the LVM configuration required, ... I will say that moving a few years of carefully built server work from ...
      (comp.os.linux.setup)
    • Re: Current thoughts on system partitioning
      ... Just to use my specific example, I've built a server with two 160 GB ... disks and installed SuSE 9.2 Pro using YaST2. ... all the LVM configuration required, ... I will say that moving a few years of carefully built server work from ...
      (comp.os.linux.misc)
    • Re: [SLE] Machine Building - Nightmare Alley - Compatibility and Upgrade
      ... On the other side I've been using Gigabyte boards with SuSE for years no ... graphic cards as the server terminal stays in text mode anyway. ... > department) that I will have to install their SuSe 9.1 distribution from ... Disks have a limited life time... ...
      (SuSE)
    • Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users)
      ... That's what I just suggested, Kerry: they're limited by disk I/O, not CPU, and hence CPU utilization *will* be low, even if the disks are working their little tails off. ... A server with very low CPU utilization is a *good* candidate for virtualization, since it's got lots of horsepower left over for other tasks that admins might be reluctant to run on the same OS instance: just hook up some more disks to service the added applicationand let 'er rip. ...
      (comp.os.vms)
    • XFS + LVM + RAID10 = raid0_make_request bug
      ... I've seemingly hit a problem trying the combination of xfs on lvm on ... partitions were simple, but of course, LVM doesn't like disk failures. ... I added the two other disks and partitioned them the same ...
      (Debian-User)