Re: Now that I have working box, any problems with LVM?
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 02:17:24PM +, J.A. de Vries wrote: Goswin wrote me the same. Good to know. I might have made that mistake as I was under the impression that RAID on the ASUS A8V Deluxe was good. In general (there are a few exceptions for high end server boards): -Onboard raid is not hardware raid and is not good. -A raid card that costs less than $200 probably isn't hardware raid and is the same as the onboard raid just on a pci card. I suspect there may be a few hardware raid cards just below $200, but probably not many. There are many software raid cards at around $100. It's that simple really. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Now that I have working box, any problems with LVM?
On 2005-06-21 @ 10:34:46 (week 25) Lennart Sorensen wrote: -A raid card that costs less than $200 probably isn't hardware raid and is the same as the onboard raid just on a pci card. I suspect there may be a few hardware raid cards just below $200, but probably not many. There are many software raid cards at around $100. Silly me, here I was thinking this mobo provided hardware RAID. I should have known better. Thanks! Grx HdV -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Now that I have working box, any problems with LVM?
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 09:34 am, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 02:17:24PM +, J.A. de Vries wrote: Goswin wrote me the same. Good to know. I might have made that mistake as I was under the impression that RAID on the ASUS A8V Deluxe was good. In general (there are a few exceptions for high end server boards): -Onboard raid is not hardware raid and is not good. -A raid card that costs less than $200 probably isn't hardware raid and is the same as the onboard raid just on a pci card. I suspect there may be a few hardware raid cards just below $200, but probably not many. There are many software raid cards at around $100. It's that simple really. Len Sorensen Something which hasn't come up in this or several other threads is the zero channel RAID card. Here, I'm using several Tyan Thunder K8S mb's which come with a built-in SCSI HBA (no RAID) and with the addition of an Adaptec 2015S zero channel RAID card, I have hardware RAID. Plus the ZC RAID cards cost less than half what a comparable PCI card costs, and don't tie up a slot. Just my half-cents worth! cmr -- Debian 'Sarge': Registered Linux User #241964 More laws, less justice. -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Now that I have working box, any problems with LVM?
On 2005-06-19 @ 20:06:49 (week 24) Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Apart from those hints I have only one problem with lvm on my amd64: Reconstructing a raid5 on lvm only does 1MB/s (instead of 50 MB/s vithout lvm). Usage speed doesn't suffer though, it just takes forever to build the first time or when replacing a disk. Hi Goswin, Thanks for the information. I decided to not put / in LVM for now. Maybe I will later on, when I have a bit more time to experiment. At the moment I am not using the RAID facilities of the mobo, but I might so I will try to remember your remarks on that too. Sincerely, HdV -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Now that I have working box, any problems with LVM?
J.A. de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2005-06-19 @ 20:06:49 (week 24) Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Apart from those hints I have only one problem with lvm on my amd64: Reconstructing a raid5 on lvm only does 1MB/s (instead of 50 MB/s vithout lvm). Usage speed doesn't suffer though, it just takes forever to build the first time or when replacing a disk. Hi Goswin, Thanks for the information. I decided to not put / in LVM for now. Maybe I will later on, when I have a bit more time to experiment. At the moment I am not using the RAID facilities of the mobo, but I might so I will try to remember your remarks on that too. My remark was about software raid of cause. Don't use the pseudo softrade from the bios. The Linux own software raid is much better and independent of the hardware. Also lvm on raid works fine. Just raid5 on lvm not. Sincerely, HdV MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Now that I have working box, any problems with LVM?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 J.A. de Vries wrote: have a bit more time to experiment. At the moment I am not using the RAID facilities of the mobo, but I might so I will try to remember your remarks on that too. If you decide to use RAID, you should probably consider the Linux software RAID as it is usually better than the builtin RAID of most mobos. /Jacob -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCtwFRiAWIAI3xXVYRAkNtAKCpvTXjgVW2Wp5fpETViEBGE7EpMgCfVQe1 pJi+aXc/xY0y/Y+efzTYot8= =VH+L -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Now that I have working box, any problems with LVM?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.A. de Vries) writes: Hi list, I was considering to use LVM on my brand new box now that is working. I have never used it before, but want to learn about it. (How's that for a reason? }:-) Before I start this little endeavor I'd like to ask if anyone knows of any caveats of using LVM[12] on debian-amd64. Also what are the feelings on the list of adding root to LVM? This is not a critical box in any way, but as it is supposed to be a server stability is of some concern. Grx HdV Some hints: 1. you can't boot from lvm so make / or /boot not on lvm (I prefer the former). 2. /etc/lvm/backup might be needed for recovery. If you want / on lvm then link /etc/lvm to somewhere else (e.g. /boot/lvm). 3. /dev on lvm creates deadlocks when doing a snapshot or pvmove (or used to do with prior versions). Best way is to have / not on lvm. devfs or udev might do the trick too. 4. don't use lvm1. Thats basicaly just there to allow using old volume groups. 5. If you create a / outside the lvm (and I strongly suggest doing that) make it not to small and not to big (somewhere between 100-500Mb) and at the begining of the disk. You might want to copy a few extra things to /bin or /sbin that usualy reside in /usr. E.g. in case something does go wrong with the lvm (and then /usr won't be there) an editor might be usefull. Copy nano or zile to /bin. 6. If / is on lvm and something does go wrong remeber that / won't be mountable. Have a rescue system available. e.g. a bootable usb stick with busybox, an editor, /etc/lvm/*, Actualy those are very usefull in any case. Apart from those hints I have only one problem with lvm on my amd64: Reconstructing a raid5 on lvm only does 1MB/s (instead of 50 MB/s vithout lvm). Usage speed doesn't suffer though, it just takes forever to build the first time or when replacing a disk. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Now that I have working box, any problems with LVM?
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 10:38 +, J.A. de Vries wrote:
I would appreciate that very much. I'd give me something to build on.
My steps after building a new kernel package are:
1) back up /boot/grub/menu.lst
2) comment out or move aside /etc/ld.so.conf
3) run ldconfig
4) dpkg -i your new kernel image and module images
5) /usr/local/src/lvm/LVM2.#/scripts/lvm2create_initrd/lvm2create_initrd -c
/etc/lvm/lvm.conf 2.6.#.# {= new kernel version you just installed}
6) replace normal ld.so.conf, re-run ldconfig
7) The package-created menu.lst will be useless. Discard it, and extend
the backed-up menu.lst to include the new kernel, as follows:
title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.11.11 Default
root(hd0,1)
kernel /vmlinuz root=/dev/ram0 lvm2root=/dev/mainvg/rootlv ro
initrd /initrd-lvm2-2.6.11.11.gz
savedefault
boot
Note the root, indicating whatever your non-LVM /boot partition is, and
the root and lvm2root kernel arguments, as well as the initrd (of
course.
I wasn't aware of /dev deadlocks re: LVM2, but haven't tried snapshots
or pvmove. Makes me more dubious about my own install. Frankly, if
Goswin strongly advises something, it's a good idea to take the
advice. :)
It's a shame if the feature's not ready for prime time yet; the root FS
is one of those places where the added performance and flexibility of
LVM2 can really be nice to have...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Now that I have working box, any problems with LVM?
Hi David and others, I have been using LVM with debian/amd64 since I first set up the box, including the root FS - a relatively long time now. It is quite stable, I can tell you that much. I myself use reiserfs, which you can, along with LVM, resize online and so forth. It's not your only filesystem choice by any means; I won't get into that whole debate. :) I know, that's a subject that has generated more than it's share of flamewars in itself }:-) I myself tend to stay a bit on the conservative side when making these choices. Up to now I still use ext3, but I am considering ReiserFS for the new box... At the time I set up, the installer had menu choices for installing over LVM, but these were broken. I had to install on a non LVM partition, set up LVM by hand, and copy over (which wasn't so hard, really). Not sure if this is fixed in later installer releases. I didn't try yet, but I seem to remember seeing an option for LVM during the install. I might just try it out. I can always start anew if it proves to be broken. You're always going to have at least your little /boot filesystem (containing your kernel and initrd) outside of LVM. Thanks. I suspected as much, but wasn't sure. The tricky piece was getting the root filesystem in LVM; for that you need [snip] Overall it's about remembering, too, that everytime you rebuild your kernel image packages you have to go through this procedure and create a working ramdisk, along with a custom grub/menu.lst that uses it. Of course the debian kernel image scripts wipe out whatever grub configuration you have in place and replace it with the generic one that won't work... Good info there. I've decided to go for it, but am still not sure whether I'll add / to LVM too. Most of the time I make separate partitions for /, /var, /tmp, /usr, /usr/local and /home (in that order). All the other filesystems will go in LVM. I figure I'll just start experimenting with / in and out of LVM and see what feels best to me. That way I can get a good feel for things. If you're interested in doing this, I can email you sample configs and other details... I would appreciate that very much. I'd give me something to build on. Grx HdV -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Now that I have working box, any problems with LVM?
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:51:17AM -0700, Joel Johnson wrote: I'd like to get others opinions on filesystems on LVM - I've been using XFS which lets you grow the filesystem online. What are others' experiences with various filesystems. Reiser and I believe ext3 are growable and shrinkable, but only offline. Any other points to consider? Resierfs is online-growable, offline-shrinkable, as are ext3 and JFS. I only know about ext3 and JFS because I had to look them up for a talk I gave about LVM a couple of weeks ago. :) Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Hey, Virtual Memory! Now I can have a *really big* ramdisk! --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Now that I have working box, any problems with LVM?
I have been using LVM with debian/amd64 since I first set up the box, including the root FS - a relatively long time now. It is quite stable, I can tell you that much. I myself use reiserfs, which you can, along with LVM, resize online and so forth. It's not your only filesystem choice by any means; I won't get into that whole debate. :) At the time I set up, the installer had menu choices for installing over LVM, but these were broken. I had to install on a non LVM partition, set up LVM by hand, and copy over (which wasn't so hard, really). Not sure if this is fixed in later installer releases. You're always going to have at least your little /boot filesystem (containing your kernel and initrd) outside of LVM. The tricky piece was getting the root filesystem in LVM; for that you need an initial ramdisk. For a while, there was a script to create one automatically for LVM1, but not for LVM2, so I had to build these initrd's by hand. Now LVM2 has a script, but it's kind of broken for amd64, since (for whatever reason, I'd love to know) when ia32 libs (in or out of chroot) are in your library path, they pop up as dependencies of major, presumably non-ia32 binaries when you ldd, and that causes the LVM2 initrd creation script to copy them over (clever), but then the non-standard library paths are not searched (even when I create an /etc/ld.so.conf on the ramdisk, by the way - figure that one out). Then some important binaries can't link and you wedge. So before you run the initrd creation script, you may as well move your /etc/ld.so.conf aside and run ldconfig first. Overall it's about remembering, too, that everytime you rebuild your kernel image packages you have to go through this procedure and create a working ramdisk, along with a custom grub/menu.lst that uses it. Of course the debian kernel image scripts wipe out whatever grub configuration you have in place and replace it with the generic one that won't work... But all in all, once you get it working, it's quite good, and I believe you do see a good performance benefit with, for instance, LVM striped across two SATA drives. And of course you get all the regular benefits of LVM if, for instance, you add a third drive, etc. If you're interested in doing this, I can email you sample configs and other details... On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, J.A. de Vries wrote: Hi list, I was considering to use LVM on my brand new box now that is working. I have never used it before, but want to learn about it. (How's that for a reason? }:-) Before I start this little endeavor I'd like to ask if anyone knows of any caveats of using LVM[12] on debian-amd64. Also what are the feelings on the list of adding root to LVM? This is not a critical box in any way, but as it is supposed to be a server stability is of some concern. Grx HdV -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Now that I have working box, any problems with LVM?
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:51:17AM -0700, Joel Johnson wrote: I have had not issues using LVM with root on it. You'll save yourself alot of headache by putting a regular,small /boot partition at the beginning of the drive, then using the rest for LVM if you're so inclined. I'd like to get others opinions on filesystems on LVM - I've been using XFS which lets you grow the filesystem online. What are others' experiences with various filesystems. Reiser and I believe ext3 are growable and shrinkable, but only offline. Any other points to consider? I have been very disappointed in the stability of 2.6.8 + raid1 md + lvm + xfs + nfs + samba. Leaks memory like mad, runs out of ram, crashes, requires lengthy xfsrepair runs after a crash, and performance nowhere near what it should be. I have now switch to ext3 instead on the same setup, and it has run flawlessly since, no crashes, no memory leaks, much faster. I don't get it since xfs should be a very good filesystem, but it seems there are bugs in 2.6 that make it unusable in certain setups. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
