similar to: Does LVM affect performance

Hi, I am trying to migrate one of my systems to a VMware virtual machine.. The PC is an IDE drive using LVM and the virtual machine is a SCSI drive using ordinary partitions.. Basically I rsynced the entire filesystem from the physical to the virtual machine and that seemed to work just fine.. I installed grub onto the drive in the virtual machine and its booting fine.. The problem comes

Hello, When I needed to build Xen guests under Debian I could follow more or less the instructions in http://preview.tinyurl.com/2oc48r and the advantage of this approach is that it allows me to setup the Xen guest directly on the LVM partition without making it consider the LVM partition as an entire disk with a partition table. The advantages of this approach are: 1. I can add more LVM's

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

On 2015-06-24 13:03, Nicolas C. wrote: > Hello, > > Do you have recommendations on EXT4 and LVM options for a 3TB > file-system for mdbox? > > We currently use the mbox format on a XFS with poor performances since > the update in v2.1 (Debian). What qualifies as "poor performance"? How many users? > > We will switch to EXT4 to have the possibility of

We have a large MySQL database currently running on a CentOS 3.x server with an external SCSI RAID device. This is currently an ext2 filesystem because it was migrated once previously from an even older RedHat system. We need to add storage capacity to this database and prepare for additional future growth. One of the options under consideration is to move to CentOS 5 and use LVM. Of some

I've been experimenting with LVM and snapshots under Centos 4.4 recently, and have found performance to be horrible while a snapshot of a logical volume exists. I expected some performance degradation with a snapshot in place due to my understanding of the copy-on-write behavior, but my system becomes almost unusable when writing to my system with a snapshot in place. For example, I can

Hello list! My setup: Dom0: Debain 5.0.3 with xen-hypervisor-3.2-1-i386 (2.6.26-2-xen-686) DomU: Ubuntu 8.04 2.6.26-2-xen-686 System is running on two hard drives mirrored with raid1 and organized by LVM. Dom0 and DomU are running on logical volumes. Partitions for DomUs are connected via ''phy:/dev/lvm/disk1,sda1,w'' for example. Here are some scenarios I testet, where you

I am testing some kickstarts on ESXi virtual machine with pair of 16GB disks. Partitioning is lvm over raid. If i am using "logvol --grow i get "ValueError: not enough free space in volume group" Only workaround i can find is to add --maxsize=XXX where XXX is at least 640MB less than available. (10 extents or 320Mb per created logical volume) Following snippet is failing with

Hi, I''m just wondering if there are any speed or stability differences between running a system directly of a LVM partition versus a xvd partition? Basicly: disk = [ ''phy:/dev/LVM/root,xvda,w'', ] vs disk= [ ''phy:LVM/root,hda1,w'',] Any tips? I tried searching the archives but I didn''t find anything. Kind regards, Tarjei

On 06/23/2015 10:54 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > (1) I have no valid usecase for it. I don't remember when was the last > time I needed to resize partitions (probably back when I was trying to > install Windows 95). Disk space is very cheap, and if I really need to > have *that* much data on a single partition, another drive and a few > intelligently placed symlinks are usually

Hello, Do you have recommendations on EXT4 and LVM options for a 3TB file-system for mdbox? We currently use the mbox format on a XFS with poor performances since the update in v2.1 (Debian). We will switch to EXT4 to have the possibility of shrinking the file-system if needed (which is not possible with XFS), we currently have LVM partitions but with mdbox we will use LVM snapshots to

On 06/26/2015 07:58 AM, Mark Milhollan wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Gordon Messmer wrote: > >> 1) If you have a system with a single disk, you have to reboot to add >> partitions for new guests. Linux won't refresh the partition table on the disk >> it boots from. > I'm not sure this is still true, but I use LVM almost everywhere so I > seldom need to try.

Here is the scenario... SIP UA's can use either GSM or G.711 ( in that order of preference in the sip.conf ).. Asterisk Server1 is linked to Asterisk Server2 via IAX2 and also supports GSM and G.711 ( also in that order of preference).. 1. If a call comes in from the UA using GSM and then goes out over the IAX2 leg, Will Asterisk simply move the GSM encoded data from the SIP channel to

I decided that the next time I reformatted my main desktop computer (this one) I would have a ssd installed in it to use for the boot drive. Now that Centos 7 is on the horizon, I'm thinking that the time is approaching when I'll want to do that. The last time I set up a computer with a ssd in it, that was the only drive that it had. I changed issue_discards=0 to issue_discards=1 into

On 11.01.2015 02:57, Alex Regan wrote: > Hi, > I'm trying to resize a 15GB LVM root partition on a fedora20 server with > a fedora20 guest and I'm having a problem. Is this supported on fedora20? > > I recall having a similar problem (maybe even exact same problem) all > the way back in fedora16 or fedora17, but hoped/thought it would be > fixed by now? > > #

Currently lvmetad is started in init, and thus using the system (= appliance) configuration of lvm. Later on, in the daemon, a local copy of the lvm configuration is setup, and set it for use using the LVM_SYSTEM_DIR environment variable: this means only the programmes executed by the daemon will use the local lvm configuration, and not lvmetad. Thus manually start lvmetad from the daemon, right

I'm trying to setup a LVM mirror on 2 iSCS targets, but can't. I have added both /dev/sda & /dev/sdb to the LVM-RAID PV, and both have 500GB space. [root at HP-DL360 by-path]# pvscan PV /dev/cciss/c0d0p2 VG LVM lvm2 [136.59 GB / 2.69 GB free] PV /dev/sda VG LVM-RAID lvm2 [500.00 GB / 490.00 GB free] PV /dev/sdb VG LVM-RAID lvm2 [502.70 GB /

I have lvm based (thin pool) storage on local disks. I need to move vps from one vg on one disk to another. Does it possible to migrate to localhost with blockcopy migration to another vg? I'm understand that i can move lv from one vg to another, but i don't need that. -- Vasiliy Tolstov, e-mail: v.tolstov@selfip.ru jabber: vase@selfip.ru

No functional change. --- tests/lvm/test-lvm-filtering.sh | 14 +++++++++----- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/lvm/test-lvm-filtering.sh b/tests/lvm/test-lvm-filtering.sh index 0c8b8803a..abb88ae6c 100755 --- a/tests/lvm/test-lvm-filtering.sh +++ b/tests/lvm/test-lvm-filtering.sh @@ -40,22 +40,22 @@ pvcreate /dev/sdb1 vgcreate VG1 /dev/sda1 vgcreate VG2

Mike - st257 silvertip257 at gmail.com Tue Jun 23 16:40:47 UTC 2015 > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Jason Warr <jason at warr.net> wrote: > > I'm curious what has made some people hate LVM so much. I have been using > > it for years on thousands of > > No clue. > My experiences with LVM have been positive as well. > And in opinion it doesn't add much