On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 5:59 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
> There is no difference between a single disk system and a multi-disk system
> in terms of being able to dynamically resize volumes that reside on a volume
> group. Having the ability to resize a volume to be either larger or smaller
>
- Original Message -
| On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 4:28 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
|
| > People who understand how to use the system do not suffer these problems.
| > LVM adds a bit of complexity for a bit of extra benefits. You can't
| > blame LVM for user error. Not having monitoring in
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Valeri Galtsev
wrote:
> You are implying that firmware of hardware RAID cards is somehow buggier
> than software of software RAID plus Linux kernel (sorry if I
> misinterpreted your point).
"Drives, and hardware RAID cards are subject to firmware bugs, just as
we
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 4:28 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
> People who understand how to use the system do not suffer these problems.
> LVM adds a bit of complexity for a bit of extra benefits. You can't blame
> LVM for user error. Not having monitoring in place or backups is a user
> proble
On Sat, February 28, 2015 4:22 pm, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Valeri Galtsev
> wrote:
>> Indeed. That is why: no LVMs in my server room. Even no software RAID.
>> Software RAID relies on the system itself to fulfill its RAID function;
>> what if kernel panics before so
- Original Message -
| On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:24:57 -0800
| John R Pierce wrote:
| > On 2/27/2015 4:52 PM, Khemara Lyn wrote:
| > >
| > > What is the right way to recover the remaining PVs left?
| >
| > take a filing cabinet packed full of 10s of 1000s of files of 100s of
| > pages each
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Valeri Galtsev
wrote:
> Indeed. That is why: no LVMs in my server room. Even no software RAID.
> Software RAID relies on the system itself to fulfill its RAID function;
> what if kernel panics before software RAID does its job? Hardware RAID
> (for huge filesystems
On Fri, February 27, 2015 10:00 pm, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:24:57 -0800
> John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 2/27/2015 4:52 PM, Khemara Lyn wrote:
>> >
>> > What is the right way to recover the remaining PVs left?
>>
>> take a filing cabinet packed full of 10s of 1000s of files of
Am Freitag, 27. Februar 2015 16:38 schrieb Mike McCarthy, W1NR:
> Is there a reason why you need 2.4 vs. the 2.3 package from the CentOS6
> repos?
Using Outlook-Clients and need support of XLIST.
AFAIK implemented in 2.4
Timothy
___
CentOS mailing list
On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 16:46 -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> > m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> >> I'm exporting a directory, firewall's open on both machines (one CentOS
> >> 6.6, the other RHEL 6.6), it automounts on the exporting machine, but
> >> the
> >> other server, not so
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
> According to this pdf [1] alignment is important but from what I understand
> 512e emulation still has a small RMW performance hit from writes that are
> smaller than 4k or if the writes are not a multiple of 4k.
There shouldn't be writ
11 matches
Mail list logo
