On Wednesday 10 February 2010 08:08:44 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Wednesday 10 February 2010 01:22:31 Iain Buchanan wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:47 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > > I now only need to figure out the best way to configure LVM over this > > > to get the best performance from it. Does anyone know of a decent way > > > of figuring this out? > > > I got 6 disks in Raid-5. > > > > why LVM? Planning on changing partition size later? LVM is good for > > (but not limited to) non-raid setups where you want one partition over a > > number of disks. > > > > If you have RAID 5 however, don't you just get one large disk out of it? > > In which case you could just create x partitions. You can always use > > parted to resize / move them later. > > > > IMHO recovery from tiny boot disks is easier without LVM too. > > General observation (not saying that Iain is wrong): > > You use RAID to get redundancy, data integrity and performance. > > You use lvm to get flexibility, ease of maintenance and the ability to > create volumes larger than any single disk or array. And do it at a > reasonable price. > > These two things have nothing to do with each other and must be viewed as > such. There are places where RAID and lvm seem to overlap, where one might > think that a feature of one can be used to replace the other. But both > really suck in these overlaps and are not very good at them. > > Bottom line: don't try and use RAID or LVM to do $STUFF outside their core > functions. They each do one thing and do it well. >
I completely agree with this. RAID is for redundancy (Loose a disk, and the system will keep running) LVM is for flexibility (Resizing/moving partitions using parted or similar takes time during which the whole system is unusable) With LVM, I can resize a partition while it is actually in use (eg. write- activities)
