On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:50:41AM +0200, Ehab Heikal wrote: > I have bad experience with LVM and raid it is near impossible to fix LVM > if you have problems mounting them after a kernel change. LVM is not as > supported in the resucue mode in most distro's CDs > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:35 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Vserver] Vservers and RAID (5 & hard) > > > On Tuesday 14 February 2006 05:41 pm, John Alberts wrote: > > I agree 100% that is what I am using on my vserver host as well and I > have enough free space unassigned to last several years at this point.
> LVM2 should actually become a permanent built-in part of all file > systems :) nitpick: LVM2 is purely userspace, so no need/point in making it built-in to every filesystem ... especially as it works below filesystems on the block layer ... best, Herbert > As I re-do my home workstations, I am changing them over to LVM2 > as well. I will not install linux now without it unless it is an > extremely specific installation that will not allow it (which I have > yet to encounter) (romable code is the only thing I can think of ). > > Chuck > > > I recently purchased a Dell PowerEdge 2850 that I'm using for > > vservers. I'm using Gentoo for the host and guests. Seems to work > > really great so far. I purchased 4 10k rpm 73G u320 drives and use > > them in a single raid5 partition. I then used LVM2 to partiion up the > > > space. > > > > Here's the output of fdisk -l : > > > > Disk /dev/sda: 219.8 GB, 219823472640 bytes > > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 26725 cylinders > > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes > > > > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System > > /dev/sda1 1 12 96358+ de Dell Utility > > /dev/sda2 * 13 21 72292+ 83 Linux > > /dev/sda3 22 508 3911827+ 82 Linux swap / > Solaris > > /dev/sda4 509 26725 210588052+ 5 Extended > > /dev/sda5 509 752 1959898+ 83 Linux > > /dev/sda6 753 26725 208628091 8e Linux LVM > > > > As you can see, I have a partition for /boot, /, and swap. The rest > > is for > LVM. > > > > I then divided up the LVM for the remainder of the system. Here's what > > > lvdisplay shows: > > > > --- Logical volume --- > > LV Name /dev/vg/usr > > VG Name vg > > LV UUID **I > > LV Write Access read/write > > LV Status available > > # open 1 > > LV Size 10.01 GB > > Current LE 2563 > > Segments 1 > > Allocation inherit > > Read ahead sectors 0 > > Block device 254:0 > > > > --- Logical volume --- > > LV Name /dev/vg/home > > VG Name vg > > LV UUID ** > > LV Write Access read/write > > LV Status available > > # open 1 > > LV Size 5.00 GB > > Current LE 1280 > > Segments 1 > > Allocation inherit > > Read ahead sectors 0 > > Block device 254:1 > > > > --- Logical volume --- > > LV Name /dev/vg/opt > > VG Name vg > > LV UUID ** > > LV Write Access read/write > > LV Status available > > # open 1 > > LV Size 5.00 GB > > Current LE 1280 > > Segments 1 > > Allocation inherit > > Read ahead sectors 0 > > Block device 254:2 > > > > --- Logical volume --- > > LV Name /dev/vg/var > > VG Name vg > > LV UUID ** > > LV Write Access read/write > > LV Status available > > # open 1 > > LV Size 10.00 GB > > Current LE 2560 > > Segments 1 > > Allocation inherit > > Read ahead sectors 0 > > Block device 254:3 > > > > --- Logical volume --- > > LV Name /dev/vg/tmp > > VG Name vg > > LV UUID ** > > LV Write Access read/write > > LV Status available > > # open 1 > > LV Size 2.00 GB > > Current LE 512 > > Segments 1 > > Allocation inherit > > Read ahead sectors 0 > > Block device 254:4 > > > > --- Logical volume --- > > LV Name /dev/vg/vservers > > VG Name vg > > LV UUID ** > > LV Write Access read/write > > LV Status available > > # open 1 > > LV Size 30.00 GB > > Current LE 7680 > > Segments 1 > > Allocation inherit > > Read ahead sectors 0 > > Block device 254:5 > > > > > > I still have lots of unused LVM space. I just expand my /vserver > > volume and any others as needed. > > > > Performance is great. > > > > Hope this helps your decision. > > > > On 2/14/06, Lars Hallberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sam Vilain wrote: > > > > > > > I hate that! Such a deep directory... besides, the unix > > > > conventions of var, /usr, etc, were made before this use case was > > > > considered (/com, anyone?). I think it deserves its own TLD (top > > > > level directory). > > > > > > /var/lib/vservers ... Have no problems with that... but i symlink it > > > > as 'v' from /root :-) ... and /etc/vservers as 'e' :-) > > > > > > Thats Ubuntu... same as Debian I asume. > > > > > > /LaH > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Vserver mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Vserver mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver > > > > -- > > Chuck > > "...and the hordes of M$*ft users descended upon me in their anger, and > asked 'Why do you not get the viruses or the BlueScreensOfDeath or > insecure system troubles and slowness or pay through the nose > for an OS as *we* do?!!', and I answered...'I use Linux'. " > The Book of John, chapter 1, page 1, and end of book > > > _______________________________________________ > Vserver mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver > > _______________________________________________ > Vserver mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [email protected] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
