On 5 Sep., 20:10, "nate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jens wrote: > > Generally I would like to hear any experiences with LVM2 you can > > offer. > > The last time I tried LVM I hosed everything, but that was eight years > > ago, at least partly due to a user error, and with LVM1 on Debian > > Woody with a self-compiled kernel on 2.4.2x. > > I would stick to MD for the RAID and LVM for the snapshot stuff.
Hi, thanks a lot for your insights! I was leaning towards that solution as well since I have experience with MD already. LVM is supposed to be able to do fast rebuilding by creating a log when a device fails. MD (in 2.4 at least) always does a full rebuild, has this maybe changed? > It's been a while since I ran MD on Debian so I don't know how/if it > handles installing the boot loader to the other disk. Red Hat at least > did not by default and I put a workaround in my kickstart config to > take care of that for me. Just out of curiosity, what exactly did you do? > I have used LVM/LVM2 quite a bit, though have never used snapshots. > The most use I got out of LVM was using it with a multipathed SAN, > over iSCSI and Fiber Channel. LVM allowed the system to find the > volumes no matter what path they were presented down(and with That was an advantage, true. Nowadays you can mount using UUIDs or disk labels which also works fine. > Also with LVM I was able to restrict volume sizes pretty easily OK, I do this with quotas mainly. I haven't yet come across a scenario where these were not sufficient any more. (Except maybe for /tmp and / var which have their own partitions). > I believe with LVM and snapshots you have to set aside a > fixed amount of space to store the deltas for them when > configuring the volume group, though this may of changed. This is still the case. This allows LVM to rebuild within minutes, instead of hours (like MD). This would be a big plus for LVM - if it worked. Plus, I could use a MD device for the LVM log so it could be used if either disk fails. > If using MD with LVM sounds too complicated you should consider > a hardware RAID controller, that way you don't need to worry > about boot loaders and 2nd disks, or rebuilding the array etc.. The problem here is the budget ... ;) > For me, multiple simple layers are easier to work with than > fewer more complicated layers. True. Thanks a lot! -Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]