[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LVM+XFS



2008/2/29, Jorge Medina <jorge@bsdchile.cl>:
> Hola lista:
>   Estaba probando XFS en debian y necesito soporte LVM quiero saber como
>   se comporta con XFS.
>
>   Linux version 2.6.18-6-686 (Debian 2.6.18.dfsg.1-18etch1)
>   (waldi@debian.org) (gcc version 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian
>   4.1.1-21)) #1 SMP Sun Feb 10 22:11:31 UTC 2008
>
>   las particiones del sistema son:
>   hellboy:~# df -h
>   Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>   /dev/sda5             9.4G  363M  9.0G   4% /
>   tmpfs                 1.7G     0  1.7G   0% /lib/init/rw
>   udev                   10M   52K   10M   1% /dev
>   tmpfs                 1.7G     0  1.7G   0% /dev/shm
>   /dev/sda1              92M   19M   69M  22% /boot
>   /dev/sda7             953M  292K  952M   1% /tmp
>   /dev/sda8              56G  255M   56G   1% /usr
>   /dev/sda6              28G  178M   28G   1% /var
>
>   # /etc/fstab: static file system information.
>   #
>   # <file system> <mount point>   <type>  <options>       <dump>  <pass>
>   proc            /proc           proc    defaults        0       0
>   /dev/sda5       /               xfs     defaults        0       1
>   /dev/sda1       /boot           ext3    defaults        0       2
>   /dev/sda7       /tmp            xfs     defaults        0       2
>   /dev/sda8       /usr            xfs     defaults        0       2
>   /dev/sda6       /var            xfs     defaults        0       2
>   /dev/sda9       none            swap    sw              0       0
>   /dev/hda        /media/cdrom0   udf,iso9660 user,noauto     0       0
>
>
>   ahora necesito crear otras 2 particiones con soporte LVM para ir
>   agregandole espacio conforme a la necesidad en el tiempo.
>
>   Todas las recomendaciones son bienvenidas

Extraido del sitio http://dev.riseup.net/grimoire/storage/lvm2/

What filesystem is best with LVM?
It all depends on what you need. All the different filesystems
work under LVM, it would be best to do some research into the current
technologies that each offer, and make an assessment based on what
your needs are. There are a number of benchmarks out there, and the
filesystems are changing rapidly, so these benchmarks will get out of
date and need to be updated.
Here are some benchmarks:
otn.oracle.com/oramag/webcolumns/2002/techarticles/scalzo_linux02.html
oregonstate.edu/~kveton/fs/
fsbench.netnation.com/

Ext2: The most stable filesystem out there for Linux is ext2, think
twice about not using it, it actually is fast and has what most people
need. Seriously consider the reasons why you want to use something
else, because most journaling filesystems are still very much in a
development stage and are risky. Stick with ext2 if all you are
wanting is the ability to never fsck again, because this is not
something you will gain with a journaling filesystem. Disorderly
shutdowns, even with full journaling on your filesystems, can lead to
dataloss of all data that is stored in the buffercache, however
filesystem consistancy will probably be maintained.

Ext3: This is one of the most stable journaling filesystems out as of
this writing. It has been in the kernel for some time, and is mostly
just a hack ontop of ext2. It is simple for converting your ext2
systems to ext3 and back, but it requires some kernel patches if you
want to do online resizing. If you are using Redhat, probably should
stick to ext2/3, Redhat does that well and doesn't do others so well,
so you are fighting if you do anything else (in fact the ext3 online
extend code is included in the latest RedHat Rawhide kernel).

Reiserfs: They say reiserfs has much better performance in dealing
with lots of small files, but it doesn't have any bad block management
capabilities. If your drive gets bad blocks, you can very quickly be
rebuiling your entire filesystem from backup. Reiser currently
performs rather poorly on really large files (ie. databases). Oracle
doesn't support the tuning of a system if it is running reiserfs, and
ranks the different filesystems as follows: ext2, ibm-jfs, ext3,
reiser. Reiser works great for maildir spools and usenet feeds.
Because resier3 does not do true data journaling (only metadata), it
is able to bring filesystem integrity back to normal after a bad
shutdown, but some data loss is possible. Reiser4 supposedly will fix
this (as well as add plug-ins). It seems a lot of people avoid Reiser
on Redhat (something having to do with redhat's kernel
interoperability causing problems, they support ext3 well, so I would
recommend sticking with ext3 if you are using Redhat), but a lot of
SuSE people use it, as it is well integrated. I personally am a fan of
Reiser for maildir spools and list archives that are parceled out in
very large individual files, it has been pretty stable for us so far,
although the website graphics freak me out and the advertising you get
when you create a filesystem is always a bit of a shock (and "secret"
sources make me nervous too).
On that note, if you are using reiserfs, it balks badly at being a
readonly filesystem. Even if you mount it readonly, it still wants
write access to the journal. We have a situation in our shop where
linux can not access the disks in read/write mode. For those
filesystems that were bootable, we cannot use reiserfs.

JFS: You can dynamically grow this filesystem without intervention,
which is kinda neat, but scary. I have yet to see people consider JFS
stable in linux

XFS: ? In terms of stability, I've had significant problems with it in
the past, but it could've been a particular kernel patch/version. XFS
only made it into the official kernel in 2.4.23, so be aware...

pvmove gives "device-mapper: error adding target to table" errors
>
>   Saludos.
>
>
>  --
>  Jorge Andrés Medina Oliva.
>  Systems Manager and Developer.
>  BSDCHiLE Inc.
>
>


-- 
Ricardo A.Frydman
Administrador de Sistemas Unix Semi-Senior


Reply to: