On Wednesday 10 February 2010 01:22:31 Iain Buchanan wrote: > On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:47 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > I now only need to figure out the best way to configure LVM over this to > > get the best performance from it. Does anyone know of a decent way of > > figuring this out? > > I got 6 disks in Raid-5. > > why LVM? Planning on changing partition size later? LVM is good for > (but not limited to) non-raid setups where you want one partition over a > number of disks. > > If you have RAID 5 however, don't you just get one large disk out of it? > In which case you could just create x partitions. You can always use > parted to resize / move them later. > > IMHO recovery from tiny boot disks is easier without LVM too. >
General observation (not saying that Iain is wrong): You use RAID to get redundancy, data integrity and performance. You use lvm to get flexibility, ease of maintenance and the ability to create volumes larger than any single disk or array. And do it at a reasonable price. These two things have nothing to do with each other and must be viewed as such. There are places where RAID and lvm seem to overlap, where one might think that a feature of one can be used to replace the other. But both really suck in these overlaps and are not very good at them. Bottom line: don't try and use RAID or LVM to do $STUFF outside their core functions. They each do one thing and do it well. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
