[gentoo-user] Re: Lost free space on /
On 06/11/2009 10:06 AM, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Donnerstag 11 Juni 2009 00:44:51 schrieb Philip Webb: On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Alexander Pilipovsky wrote: But how many space on hard disk for it will be good? I haven't followed this thread in detail, but has anyone suggested LVM ? No. I'm so used to it I can't even imagine that people still use DOS style partitions ;) I tried too but it slows down disk speed to a crawl when there's disk activity by an order of magnitude (commands take 3-4 seconds to execute while without LVM they give sub-second responses.)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Lost free space on /
Am Donnerstag 11 Juni 2009 09:33:46 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras: I tried too but it slows down disk speed to a crawl when there's disk activity by an order of magnitude (commands take 3-4 seconds to execute while without LVM they give sub-second responses.) Hmm, that's strange. I've never seen this and I use LVM since it first appeared on Linux. On Laptops, I even encrypt the logical volumes without a significant speed impact. Bye... Dirk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Lost free space on /
On Donnerstag 11 Juni 2009, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Donnerstag 11 Juni 2009 09:33:46 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras: I tried too but it slows down disk speed to a crawl when there's disk activity by an order of magnitude (commands take 3-4 seconds to execute while without LVM they give sub-second responses.) Hmm, that's strange. I've never seen this and I use LVM since it first appeared on Linux. On Laptops, I even encrypt the logical volumes without a significant speed impact. Bye... Dirk or you never 'saw' the impact because you are used to it.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Lost free space on /
Am Donnerstag 11 Juni 2009 09:49:02 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: or you never 'saw' the impact because you are used to it. Errh, no. Bye... Dirk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] Re: Lost free space on /
On 06/11/2009 10:40 AM, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Donnerstag 11 Juni 2009 09:33:46 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras: I tried too but it slows down disk speed to a crawl when there's disk activity by an order of magnitude (commands take 3-4 seconds to execute while without LVM they give sub-second responses.) Hmm, that's strange. I've never seen this and I use LVM since it first appeared on Linux. On Laptops, I even encrypt the logical volumes without a significant speed impact. It's only there where's disk activity. For example, if I have 4 or more torrents downloading. When that happens, typing mc (to start midnight commander) needs about 4 seconds. It's almost instant without LVM. The speed impact on one of my servers (100+ shell users) was dramatic. 10 seconds for a simple ls / for example.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Lost free space on /
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:17:37 +0300 Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de wrote: It's only there where's disk activity. For example, if I have 4 or more torrents downloading. When that happens, typing mc (to start midnight commander) needs about 4 seconds. It's almost instant without LVM. The speed impact on one of my servers (100+ shell users) was dramatic. 10 seconds for a simple ls / for example. It's not like LVM is modelling the universe' operation on your CPU, but that's where impact should be, while disk activity (and data written) should be roughly the same, aside from possible fragmentation if you (re)create lv's on a daily basis, so prehaps it's not the disk but the cpu where's the real bottleneck is? -- Mike Kazantsev // fraggod.net signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Re: Lost free space on /
On 06/11/2009 04:52 PM, Mike Kazantsev wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:17:37 +0300 Nikos Chantziarasrea...@arcor.de wrote: It's only there where's disk activity. For example, if I have 4 or more torrents downloading. When that happens, typing mc (to start midnight commander) needs about 4 seconds. It's almost instant without LVM. The speed impact on one of my servers (100+ shell users) was dramatic. 10 seconds for a simple ls / for example. It's not like LVM is modelling the universe' operation on your CPU, but that's where impact should be, while disk activity (and data written) should be roughly the same, aside from possible fragmentation if you (re)create lv's on a daily basis, so prehaps it's not the disk but the cpu where's the real bottleneck is? I know it's not the CPU since there's 'top' to check this.
