For a high-performance system (64-cores, 512GB RAM, 5TB local disk, 110TB NFS-mounted storage) is there any advantage of dropping lvm and mounting partitions directly? We're not planning on changing partition sizes, but if we did we'd probably do a full rebuild. Has anyone done performance testing to show that lvm isn't crippling I/O? Thanx, Russell ======================================================================Attention: The information contained in this message and/or attachments from AgResearch Limited is intended only for the persons or entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipients is prohibited by AgResearch Limited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. =======================================================================
On 19.08.2012 23:16, Smithies, Russell wrote:> For a high-performance system (64-cores, 512GB RAM, 5TB local disk, > 110TB NFS-mounted storage) is there any advantage of dropping lvm and > mounting partitions directly? > We're not planning on changing partition sizes, but if we did we'd > probably do a full rebuild. > Has anyone done performance testing to show that lvm isn't crippling > I/O? > > Thanx, > > RussellI'm a long time user of LVM and I never noticed any problems with it, let alone "crippling IO". In some benchmarks[1] it even speeds up things and I believe the Anaconda automatic partitioning defaults to LVM, too. [1] - http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora_15_lvm&num=3 -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro
On 08/19/12 3:16 PM, Smithies, Russell wrote:> For a high-performance system (64-cores, 512GB RAM, 5TB local disk, 110TB NFS-mounted storage) is there any advantage of dropping lvm and mounting partitions directly? > We're not planning on changing partition sizes, but if we did we'd probably do a full rebuild. > Has anyone done performance testing to show that lvm isn't crippling I/O?running an extensive series of pgbench (postgresql benchmark similar to tps-c) with and without lvm and using ext4 vs xfs, on a very large raid10 built from 16 drives, the performance differences were pretty much non-existant, down in the noise, less than 1%. this was on a 12 core (24 thread) 3Ghz 48GB ram system, using a LSI logic megasas2 raid card with 512MB battery backed writeback cache. the IO in these tests were 99% random write, and the tests were run with all 4 combinations of LVM or not and EX4 vs XFS and with different client connection counts (typically up around 100 client connections was where we got the peak transaction throughput the entire raid was dedicated to the database tests, the OS was running on a seperate raid1 which had pretty much zero IO during the benchmark sequences. now, this isn't saying that you might not get a totally different result under different test conditions. -- john r pierce N 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast