On 06/24/2012 12:05 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> And what do you do when this LVM goes corrupt in about a month? I've
> had it self destruct on me twice. I hate it when that happens.
I would look for some other issue like bad hardware. Over the last
several years I've routinely used LVM for pretty much everything and
have never had it go corrupt on me except when there was a hardware
failure involved. My standard buildouts use LVM over RAID.
--
Benjamin Franz
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
06-24-2012, 02:13 PM
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
On 06/24/2012 03:41 PM, Benjamin Franz wrote:
> On 06/24/2012 12:05 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> And what do you do when this LVM goes corrupt in about a month? I've
>> had it self destruct on me twice. I hate it when that happens.
>
> I would look for some other issue like bad hardware. Over the last
> several years I've routinely used LVM for pretty much everything and
> have never had it go corrupt on me except when there was a hardware
> failure involved. My standard buildouts use LVM over RAID.
>
Same here. We have 7 Racks full of servers and most of them run virtual
machines and we use LVM on the hosts and in the guests. In the last 10
years I've seen many cases of corruption however none of them were ever
related to LVM.
Regards,
Dennis
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
06-24-2012, 03:21 PM
ken
On 06/24/2012 09:41 AM Benjamin Franz wrote:
> On 06/24/2012 12:05 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> And what do you do when this LVM goes corrupt in about a month? I've
>> had it self destruct on me twice. I hate it when that happens.
>
> I would look for some other issue like bad hardware. Over the last
> several years I've routinely used LVM for pretty much everything and
> have never had it go corrupt on me except when there was a hardware
> failure involved. My standard buildouts use LVM over RAID.
Gene,
Yeah, the problem is more than likely in your hardware. I've used it on
hundreds of machines and since 1999 and never had a problem traceable to
LVM. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of disks go bad.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
06-24-2012, 04:04 PM
Steve Clark
On 06/24/2012 11:21 AM, ken wrote:
> On 06/24/2012 09:41 AM Benjamin Franz wrote:
>> On 06/24/2012 12:05 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>> And what do you do when this LVM goes corrupt in about a month? I've
>>> had it self destruct on me twice. I hate it when that happens.
>> I would look for some other issue like bad hardware. Over the last
>> several years I've routinely used LVM for pretty much everything and
>> have never had it go corrupt on me except when there was a hardware
>> failure involved. My standard buildouts use LVM over RAID.
> Gene,
>
> Yeah, the problem is more than likely in your hardware. I've used it on
> hundreds of machines and since 1999 and never had a problem traceable to
> LVM. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of disks go bad.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
What I don't like about LVM. at least on a personal system, is it obfuscates where things are if you have multiple
underlying drives. You can't just do a df -h and see what the physical layout really is. I guess there are some
pvdisplay and lvdisplay commands that can show this - but I always have to look them up and when things go
kaflooey and your system isn't working then what - bring out the rescue cd and hope you can figure it out.
--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves*
Director of Technology
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.clark@netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
06-24-2012, 04:24 PM
ken
On 06/24/2012 12:04 PM Steve Clark wrote:
> On 06/24/2012 11:21 AM, ken wrote:
>> On 06/24/2012 09:41 AM Benjamin Franz wrote:
>>> On 06/24/2012 12:05 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>>> And what do you do when this LVM goes corrupt in about a month? I've
>>>> had it self destruct on me twice. I hate it when that happens.
>>> I would look for some other issue like bad hardware. Over the last
>>> several years I've routinely used LVM for pretty much everything and
>>> have never had it go corrupt on me except when there was a hardware
>>> failure involved. My standard buildouts use LVM over RAID.
>> Gene,
>>
>> Yeah, the problem is more than likely in your hardware. I've used it on
>> hundreds of machines and since 1999 and never had a problem traceable to
>> LVM. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of disks go bad.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@centos.org
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
> What I don't like about LVM. at least on a personal system, is it
> obfuscates where things are if you have multiple
> underlying drives. You can't just do a df -h and see what the physical
> layout really is. I guess there are some
> pvdisplay and lvdisplay commands that can show this - but I always have
> to look them up and when things go
> kaflooey and your system isn't working then what - bring out the rescue
> cd and hope you can figure it out.
>
>
> --
> Stephen Clark
> *NetWolves*
> Director of Technology
> Phone: 813-579-3200
> Fax: 813-882-0209
> Email: steve.clark@netwolves.com
> http://www.netwolves.com
It helps during their creation, rather than just accepting the defaults,
to give the LVs meaningful names. But even if you don't:
Where's the difficulty?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
06-24-2012, 04:42 PM
Keith Roberts
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012, ken wrote:
> It helps during their creation, rather than just accepting the defaults,
> to give the LVs meaningful names. But even if you don't:
>
> # df -H
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-lvroot
> 31G 12G 18G 39% /
> /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-lvtmp
> 195M 55M 131M 30% /tmp
> /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-lvvar
> 21G 1.2G 19G 6% /var
> /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-lvhome
> 185G 40G 136G 23% /home
> /dev/hda3 518M 46M 446M 10% /boot
>
>
> Where's the difficulty?
OK. But what about a drive that is already partitioned with
live data on it. Is it easy to make that work with LVM, or
does it mean I have to do a fresh installation to use LVM?
All email addresses are challenge-response protected with
TMDA [http://tmda.net]
-----------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
06-24-2012, 04:47 PM
Keith Roberts
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012, ken wrote:
*snip*
> Yeah, the problem is more than likely in your hardware. I've used it on
> hundreds of machines and since 1999 and never had a problem traceable to
> LVM. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of disks go bad.
And what happens then in that situation - do you loose any
more data than you would loose with 'standard' primary and
extended logical partitions, or does using LVM help in
recovering more data from a bad disk?
All email addresses are challenge-response protected with
TMDA [http://tmda.net]
-----------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
06-24-2012, 06:56 PM
Nikolaos Milas
On 24/6/2012 7:47 μμ, Keith Roberts wrote:
> And what happens then in that situation - do you loose any
> more data than you would loose with 'standard' primary and
> extended logical partitions, or does using LVM help in
> recovering more data from a bad disk?
In a few words, if your hardware is high-quality, i.e. reliable enough
so you don't expect problems, LVM adds important functionality and
flexibility on servers.
In any case, the need for good backups should not be overlooked. For
example, mondorescue allows both full and incremental backups, using LVM
or not.
Nick
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
06-24-2012, 06:58 PM
Steve Clark
On 06/24/2012 12:24 PM, ken wrote:
>
> On 06/24/2012 12:04 PM Steve Clark wrote:
>> On 06/24/2012 11:21 AM, ken wrote:
>>> On 06/24/2012 09:41 AM Benjamin Franz wrote:
>>>> On 06/24/2012 12:05 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>>>> And what do you do when this LVM goes corrupt in about a month? I've
>>>>> had it self destruct on me twice. I hate it when that happens.
>>>> I would look for some other issue like bad hardware. Over the last
>>>> several years I've routinely used LVM for pretty much everything and
>>>> have never had it go corrupt on me except when there was a hardware
>>>> failure involved. My standard buildouts use LVM over RAID.
>>> Gene,
>>>
>>> Yeah, the problem is more than likely in your hardware. I've used it on
>>> hundreds of machines and since 1999 and never had a problem traceable to
>>> LVM. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of disks go bad.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CentOS mailing list
>>> CentOS@centos.org
>>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>>
>> What I don't like about LVM. at least on a personal system, is it
>> obfuscates where things are if you have multiple
>> underlying drives. You can't just do a df -h and see what the physical
>> layout really is. I guess there are some
>> pvdisplay and lvdisplay commands that can show this - but I always have
>> to look them up and when things go
>> kaflooey and your system isn't working then what - bring out the rescue
>> cd and hope you can figure it out.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Clark
>> *NetWolves*
>> Director of Technology
>> Phone: 813-579-3200
>> Fax: 813-882-0209
>> Email: steve.clark@netwolves.com
>> http://www.netwolves.com
> It helps during their creation, rather than just accepting the defaults,
> to give the LVs meaningful names. But even if you don't:
>
> # df -H
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-lvroot
> 31G 12G 18G 39% /
> /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-lvtmp
> 195M 55M 131M 30% /tmp
> /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-lvvar
> 21G 1.2G 19G 6% /var
> /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-lvhome
> 185G 40G 136G 23% /home
> /dev/hda3 518M 46M 446M 10% /boot
>
>
> Where's the difficulty?
>
What are the underlying actual physical devices?
--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves*
Director of Technology
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.clark@netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
06-24-2012, 07:59 PM
Keith Roberts
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
To: CentOS mailing list <centos@centos.org>
From: Nikolaos Milas <nmilas@noa.gr>
Subject: Re: [CentOS] partitions vs. LVs [was: Re: How to upgrade from 5.8 to
6.2]
On 24/6/2012 7:47 μμ, Keith Roberts wrote:
And what happens then in that situation - do you loose any
more data than you would loose with 'standard' primary and
extended logical partitions, or does using LVM help in
recovering more data from a bad disk?
In a few words, if your hardware is high-quality, i.e. reliable enough so you
don't expect problems, LVM adds important functionality and flexibility on
servers.
In any case, the need for good backups should not be overlooked. For example,
mondorescue allows both full and incremental backups, using LVM or not.
Thanks for that link Nick - I have bookmarked that. I'm
looking for work as a Linux System Administrator so will
check that out as well.
All email addresses are challenge-response protected with
TMDA [http://tmda.net]
-----------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
