similar to: LVM hatred, was Re: /boot on a separate partition?

Hello I have a CentOS 6.6 Server with 13 disks in a RAID 6. Some weeks ago, i upgraded it to 17 disks, two of them configured as spare. The reshape worked like normal in the beginning. But at 69% it stopped. md2 : active raid6 sdj1[0] sdg1[18](S) sdh1[2] sdi1[5] sdm1[15] sds1[12] sdr1[14] sdk1[9] sdo1[6] sdn1[13] sdl1[8] sdd1[20] sdf1[19] sdq1[16] sdb1[10] sde1[17](S) sdc1[21] 19533803520

Hi, I am on SLES 10, SP1, x86_64, running the distribution rpm's of ocfs: ocfs2console-1.2.3-0.7 ocfs2-tools-1.2.3-0.7 I have a two node ocfs2 cluster configured. One node died (manual reset), and the second started immediately to have problems on accessing the file system for the following reason from the logs: Transport endpoint not connected. a mounted.ocfs2 on the still living

Does anyone on the list have definitive information on whether ZFS works with CLARiiON devices? bash-3.00# uname -a SunOS XXXXXXX 5.10 Generic_118833-33 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-V245 bash-3.00# powermt display dev=all Pseudo name=emcpower0a CLARiiON ID=APM00033500540 [XXXXXXX] Logical device ID=600601607C550E00F25F4629AFBEDB11 [LUN 61] state=alive; policy=BasicFailover; priority=0; queued-IOs=0

Marko Vojinovic wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:23:52 -0400 > Mauricio Tavares <raubvogel at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:15:30 -0500 >> > Jason Warr <jason at warr.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> I'm curious what has

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

On 6/23/2015 10:33 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > Inside / (which is mostly always ext4), 100% of the time. :-) > > That said, I prefer virtual machines over multiboot environments, and I > absolutely despise LVM --- that cursed thing is never getting on my > drives. Never again, that is... I'm curious what has made some people hate LVM so much. I have been using it for years

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:42:13 -0700 Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: > > I wondered the same thing, especially in the context of someone who > prefers virtual machines. LV-backed VMs have *dramatically* better > disk performance than file-backed VMs. Ok, you made me curious. Just how dramatic can it be? From where I'm sitting, a read/write to a disk

On 6/23/2015 11:23 AM, Mauricio Tavares wrote: > AIX does use lvm a lot. Main difference is their filesystem > allows live shrinking. Kinda nice to dynamically size a partition > depending on needs, as opposite to the so often suggested approach of > formatting the entire drive as one single partition. Symlinking is > great until whatever the destination is does not mount. I

Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 06/23/2015 08:10 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: >> Ok, you made me curious. Just how dramatic can it be? From where I'm >> sitting, a read/write to a disk takes the amount of time it takes, the >> hardware has a certain physical speed, regardless of the presence of >> LVM. What am I missing? > > Well, there's best and worst case

On 06/24/2015 12:06 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > LVM snapshots make it easy to get point-in-time consistent backups, > including databases. For example, with MySQL, you can freeze and flush > all the databases, snapshot the LV, and release the freeze. Exactly. And I mention this from time to time... I'm working on infrastructure to make that more common and more consistent:

On 6/24/2015 3:11 PM, Chuck Campbell wrote: > Is there an easy to follow "howto" for normal LVM administration > tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something I > don't remember how to do regarding LVM, so I usually just don't bother > with it at all. I believe it has some benefit for my use cases, but > I've been reticent to use it,

On 6/25/2015 8:50 AM, Robert Heller wrote: > man vgdisplay > man lvdisplay > man lvcreate > man lvextend > man lvresize > man lvreduce > man lvremove > man e2fsck > man resize2fs man xfs_growfs -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

----- Original Message ----- | On 6/25/2015 8:50 AM, Robert Heller wrote: | > man vgdisplay | > man lvdisplay | > man lvcreate | > man lvextend | > man lvresize | > man lvreduce | > man lvremove | > man e2fsck | > man resize2fs | | man xfs_growfs You forgot man "this opinion thread is getting really long" -- James A. Peltier IT Services - Research Computing

On 6/25/2015 11:12 AM, James A. Peltier wrote: > You forgot man "this opinion thread is getting really long" No manual entry for this opinion thread is getting really long -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On Thu, June 25, 2015 11:59 am, Scott Robbins wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:49:57AM -0500, Jason Warr wrote: >> >> >> On 6/24/2015 3:11 PM, Chuck Campbell wrote: >> >Is there an easy to follow "howto" for normal LVM administration >> >tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something I >> >don't remember how to do

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

Chris Adams linux at cmadams.net Wed Jun 24 13:14:34 UTC 2015 > > > There are plenty of people that have documented the performance > differences, just Google it. This is consistent with what I've experienced. Minimal difference. http://web-docs.gsi.de/~tstibor/iozone/qcow.vs.lvm/ -- Chris Murphy

Chris Adams linux at cmadams.net Wed Jun 24 19:06:19 UTC 2015 >Btrfs may eventually obsolete a lot of > uses of LVM, but that's down the road. LVM is the emacs of storage. It'll be here forever. Btrfs doesn't export (virtual) block devices like LVM can, so it can't be a backing for say iSCSI. And it's also at the moment rather catatonic when it comes to VM images. This

On 06/25/2015 06:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer at gmail.com Wed Jun 24 01:42:13 UTC 2015 > >> I wondered the same thing, especially in the context of someone who >> prefers virtual machines. LV-backed VMs have *dramatically* better disk >> performance than file-backed VMs. > I did a bunch of testing of Raw, qcow2, and LV backed VM storage

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: >> , or alternatively making the LVs >> redundant after install is a single command (each) and you can choose >> whether it should be mere mirroring or some MD manged RAID level (modulo >> the LVM RAID MD monitoring issue). > > > I hadn't realized that. That's an