2008/2/29, Jorge Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hola lista: > Estaba probando XFS en debian y necesito soporte LVM quiero saber como > se comporta con XFS. > > Linux version 2.6.18-6-686 (Debian 2.6.18.dfsg.1-18etch1) > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian > 4.1.1-21)) #1 SMP Sun Feb 10 22:11:31 UTC 2008 > > las particiones del sistema son: > hellboy:~# df -h > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > /dev/sda5 9.4G 363M 9.0G 4% / > tmpfs 1.7G 0 1.7G 0% /lib/init/rw > udev 10M 52K 10M 1% /dev > tmpfs 1.7G 0 1.7G 0% /dev/shm > /dev/sda1 92M 19M 69M 22% /boot > /dev/sda7 953M 292K 952M 1% /tmp > /dev/sda8 56G 255M 56G 1% /usr > /dev/sda6 28G 178M 28G 1% /var > > # /etc/fstab: static file system information. > # > # <file system> <mount point> <type> <options> <dump> <pass> > proc /proc proc defaults 0 0 > /dev/sda5 / xfs defaults 0 1 > /dev/sda1 /boot ext3 defaults 0 2 > /dev/sda7 /tmp xfs defaults 0 2 > /dev/sda8 /usr xfs defaults 0 2 > /dev/sda6 /var xfs defaults 0 2 > /dev/sda9 none swap sw 0 0 > /dev/hda /media/cdrom0 udf,iso9660 user,noauto 0 0 > > > ahora necesito crear otras 2 particiones con soporte LVM para ir > agregandole espacio conforme a la necesidad en el tiempo. > > Todas las recomendaciones son bienvenidas
Extraido del sitio http://dev.riseup.net/grimoire/storage/lvm2/ What filesystem is best with LVM? It all depends on what you need. All the different filesystems work under LVM, it would be best to do some research into the current technologies that each offer, and make an assessment based on what your needs are. There are a number of benchmarks out there, and the filesystems are changing rapidly, so these benchmarks will get out of date and need to be updated. Here are some benchmarks: otn.oracle.com/oramag/webcolumns/2002/techarticles/scalzo_linux02.html oregonstate.edu/~kveton/fs/ fsbench.netnation.com/ Ext2: The most stable filesystem out there for Linux is ext2, think twice about not using it, it actually is fast and has what most people need. Seriously consider the reasons why you want to use something else, because most journaling filesystems are still very much in a development stage and are risky. Stick with ext2 if all you are wanting is the ability to never fsck again, because this is not something you will gain with a journaling filesystem. Disorderly shutdowns, even with full journaling on your filesystems, can lead to dataloss of all data that is stored in the buffercache, however filesystem consistancy will probably be maintained. Ext3: This is one of the most stable journaling filesystems out as of this writing. It has been in the kernel for some time, and is mostly just a hack ontop of ext2. It is simple for converting your ext2 systems to ext3 and back, but it requires some kernel patches if you want to do online resizing. If you are using Redhat, probably should stick to ext2/3, Redhat does that well and doesn't do others so well, so you are fighting if you do anything else (in fact the ext3 online extend code is included in the latest RedHat Rawhide kernel). Reiserfs: They say reiserfs has much better performance in dealing with lots of small files, but it doesn't have any bad block management capabilities. If your drive gets bad blocks, you can very quickly be rebuiling your entire filesystem from backup. Reiser currently performs rather poorly on really large files (ie. databases). Oracle doesn't support the tuning of a system if it is running reiserfs, and ranks the different filesystems as follows: ext2, ibm-jfs, ext3, reiser. Reiser works great for maildir spools and usenet feeds. Because resier3 does not do true data journaling (only metadata), it is able to bring filesystem integrity back to normal after a bad shutdown, but some data loss is possible. Reiser4 supposedly will fix this (as well as add plug-ins). It seems a lot of people avoid Reiser on Redhat (something having to do with redhat's kernel interoperability causing problems, they support ext3 well, so I would recommend sticking with ext3 if you are using Redhat), but a lot of SuSE people use it, as it is well integrated. I personally am a fan of Reiser for maildir spools and list archives that are parceled out in very large individual files, it has been pretty stable for us so far, although the website graphics freak me out and the advertising you get when you create a filesystem is always a bit of a shock (and "secret" sources make me nervous too). On that note, if you are using reiserfs, it balks badly at being a readonly filesystem. Even if you mount it readonly, it still wants write access to the journal. We have a situation in our shop where linux can not access the disks in read/write mode. For those filesystems that were bootable, we cannot use reiserfs. JFS: You can dynamically grow this filesystem without intervention, which is kinda neat, but scary. I have yet to see people consider JFS stable in linux XFS: ? In terms of stability, I've had significant problems with it in the past, but it could've been a particular kernel patch/version. XFS only made it into the official kernel in 2.4.23, so be aware... pvmove gives "device-mapper: error adding target to table" errors > > Saludos. > > > -- > Jorge Andrés Medina Oliva. > Systems Manager and Developer. > BSDCHiLE Inc. > > -- Ricardo A.Frydman Administrador de Sistemas Unix Semi-Senior
