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

Re: Need help re LVM setup...<repost>

Hash: SHA1

On Monday 04 Aug 2003 1:14 am, Neal Lippman wrote:
> I am looking at installing the lvm layer on my file server, which is
> presently running woody. I have two 80GB hd's, one of which presently
> stores my /home partition (exported via both nfs and samba to the other
> systems on my home lan), and another which I just installed. (Actually,
> there's a third 80GB which stores /, /boot, /usr, /tmp, and /var, but I
> won't be including that in the lvm). Anyway, I figured the best approach
> was to turn both 80GB data drives into one 160gb logical volume. Since
> this is the main file store of everyone at home, stability is a very
> very high priority.
> My questions are:
> 1) Which lvm package to install? There are two obvious choices, lvm10
> and lvm2. While lvm2 is the new rewrite, which is supposedly "stable",
> it apparently lacks some features and according to the debian.org
> description of the package is not yet ready for production use. So, I
> assume I am correct in going for lvm10 at the present time?

I use lvm10 on both a server and a workstation - I did run across a problem 
with it crashing when I created lots of logical volumes in a row - I reported 
this as a debian bug which got fixed (I think it needed a kernel patch).

> 2) If I do go with lvm10, will upgrading to lvm2 once it is ready for
> production use just be a matter of apt-get install'ing lvm2 and removing
> lvm10, or are there incompatibilities in the on-disk structure that
> would mean starting over from scratch? That would be a major problem
> once I have stuff scattered across 160GB of logical space on two
> physical drives.

Don't know

> 3) lvm10 recommends kernel version 2.4.20; I am running the standard
> 2.4.18 on the server. It is crucial to do this upgrade? (I suppose it

I think at least one reason would be because of the bug I mentioned above.

> wouldn't hurt since 2.4.20 contains the driver for my server's onboard
> gigabit ethernet chip, which I am not presently using as 2.4.18 did not
> support it, but still, I like to do as little as possible to the
> fileserver.)
> 4) Is anyone using lvm on their system who can comment on success,
> failure, pitfalls, etc?

I do not use lvm for the root filesystem.  Its just too much hastle to get a 
boot floppy that can read it if problems - by the same token I use ext3 for 
the root filesystem and reiserfs for all the others.

> 5) I was debating using ReiserFS instead of ext2 as I have been - any
> thoughts on whether that would make sense?

It works fine - in fact I would say better because ext3(2?) seems to need a 
lot of checks to increase the filesystem size.  Reiser does it on the fly. 

- -- 
Alan Chandler
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: