[linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?

[linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?

[Petro]

Is the 255.99 Gigabyte limit for a logical volume still in place, or
does that go away/get bigger with the later (post 0.91) versions? 

-- 
Share and Enjoy. 

Re: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?

[mitch]

Seems like that's more a function of how one of the other parameters, not
LVM itself.  Isn't there a block size parameter you can set, or something
like that?  Search the archives here, I remember seeing that a couple of
weeks back.

-- Mitch


On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Petro wrote:

> Is the 255.99 Gigabyte limit for a logical volume still in place, or
> does that go away/get bigger with the later (post 0.91) versions?
>
>

Re: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?

[Sean Oh]

Yes, it is still in the current CVS, if I am not wrong.

But, you can go away with by defining PE size to a bigger number than default 4MB.
By defining PE size to 16M, it gives 
16M * 65534 = 1,048,544M, which is about 1TB.

take a look at -s switch in vgcreate.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Petro" <petro@auctionwatch.com>
To: <linux-lvm@sistina.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 3:37 PM
Subject: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?


> Is the 255.99 Gigabyte limit for a logical volume still in place, or
> does that go away/get bigger with the later (post 0.91) versions? 
> 
> -- 
> Share and Enjoy. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
> 

Re: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?

[Petro]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 03:51:32PM +0900, Sean Oh wrote:
> Yes, it is still in the current CVS, if I am not wrong.
> But, you can go away with by defining PE size to a bigger number than default 4MB.
> By defining PE size to 16M, it gives 
> 16M * 65534 = 1,048,544M, which is about 1TB.
> take a look at -s switch in vgcreate.

    Cool. I need about 300 gig. 

    Those 3ware cards rock. Lots of disk, fast and cheap. 

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Petro" <petro@auctionwatch.com>
> To: <linux-lvm@sistina.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 3:37 PM
> Subject: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?
> 
> 
> > Is the 255.99 Gigabyte limit for a logical volume still in place, or
> > does that go away/get bigger with the later (post 0.91) versions? 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Share and Enjoy. 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-lvm mailing list
> > linux-lvm@sistina.com
> > http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> > read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
> > 
> ?)??[?????x%??e?{??????b??(?^[m?????l?+-?v??o?j)fj\x7f???b????)??[?????\x17?T??Y3??^[m????\v"???i?&?[????z???\vh???

-- 
Share and Enjoy. 

Re: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?

[Benjamin Reed]

Petro [petro@auctionwatch.com] wrote:
> Those 3ware cards rock. Lots of disk, fast and cheap. 

Yup, love mine.  Too bad they've stopped supporting them.  :(

-- 
Ben Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick (ranger@befunk.com)
http://defiance.dyndns.org/ / http://radio.scenespot.org/
"Right now Moltar is heating my skull up to a scorching 450 degrees.
It's like getting a scalp massage... from Lucifer." -- Space Ghost

Re: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?

[Petro]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 02:14:14AM -0500, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> Petro [petro@auctionwatch.com] wrote:
> > Those 3ware cards rock. Lots of disk, fast and cheap. 
> 
> Yup, love mine.  Too bad they've stopped supporting them.  :(

    Really? 

    I've got 11, and we just bought them (6x series) about 7 months
    ago.

    Last time I asked a question they were real helpful. (About 3 weeks
    ago). 

-- 
Share and Enjoy. 

Re: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "BR" == Benjamin Reed <ranger@befunk.com> writes:

BR> Yup, love mine.  Too bad they've stopped supporting them.  :(

This is untrue.  They never intended to stop supporting them, and
recently they have reversed their decision to stop selling them.

 - J<

Re: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?

[Goetz Bock]

On Sat, Nov 17 '01 at 23:11, Petro wrote:
>     Those 3ware cards rock. Lots of disk, fast and cheap. 
While the cards may be cool, their raid 5 implementation sucks like
hell.
slow like a slug, and if it should ever become dirty the system is
unuseable for about 6 hours. (with 6x80gb Maxtor ATA drives in RAID5).
And I don't have enough additional storage to make a backup and switch
over to linux softraid :-(
Ok, my backup solution should have enought space, but hey, I've raid i
don't need backup ;-) 
(Don't beat me to hard, I've a backup solution for my important data)

    Goetz.

Re: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "GB" == Goetz Bock <bock@blacknet.de> writes:

GB> While the cards may be cool, their raid 5 implementation sucks
GB> like hell. slow like a slug, and if it should ever become dirty
GB> the system is unuseable for about 6 hours.

Don't run the 6000-series cards in RAID5 mode; they weren't designed
for it.  Use software RAID instead; it works just fine and the card is
still cost-effective as an 8-channel IDE controller.  What you say is
blatantly untrue for the 7000-series cards; the 7850 should be even
faster.

Why the proliferation of 3ware misinformation on this list lately?

 - J<

Re: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?

[Goetz Bock]

On Mon, Nov 19 '01 at 08:00, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> GB> While the cards may be cool, their raid 5 implementation sucks
> GB> like hell. slow like a slug, and if it should ever become dirty
> GB> the system is unuseable for about 6 hours.
> Don't run the 6000-series cards in RAID5 mode; they weren't designed
I figured this out the hard way. I asked some 3ware person whether I
could use a 6800 as a RAID5 controller and was told, that it would work
fine.
> for it.  Use software RAID instead; it works just fine and the card is
> still cost-effective as an 8-channel IDE controller.
This is true.
> What you say is blatantly untrue for the 7000-series cards; the 7850
> should be even faster.
As an owner of two 6800 this does not help me at all :-(, but hey they
got better, what is cool. 

> Why the proliferation of 3ware misinformation on this list lately?
It was only me who disappointed by the 6xxx series RAID5 performance

    Goetz.

[linux-lvm] 3Ware [OT] (was: Logical Volume max-size?)

[Benjamin Scott]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Goetz Bock wrote:
> I figured this out the hard way. I asked some 3ware person whether I
> could use a 6800 as a RAID5 controller and was told, that it would work
> fine.

  Did you try going back and complaining that it did not work as advertised?

  I ask because we have had success with their 6200 series as a mirrored
drive controller, and have found 3Ware to be reasonably responsive.  We have
not had the opportunity to try their RAID5 offerings yet, and your comments
certainly do not inspire confidence.  I am wondering if it is an issue that
can be corrected by, e.g., a firmware update, or if it is just a design flaw
in the cards.

-- 
Ben Scott <bscott@ntisys.com>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or  |
| organization.  All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

Re: [linux-lvm] 3Ware [OT] (was: Logical Volume max-size?)

[Lars O. Grobe]

Hi Benjamin!

Benjamin Scott wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Goetz Bock wrote:
> > I figured this out the hard way. I asked some 3ware person whether I
> > could use a 6800 as a RAID5 controller and was told, that it would work
> > fine.

We use this here with Linux and RAID5. In fact, we first installed the
newest firmware, which is necessary AFAIK with RAID5. And you shouldn't
expect too much speed, RAID5-writing is not very fast with this IDE
RAID. As the IDE-array is only the backup of our SCSI-fileserver, we are
not to worried about write-speed here (we use rsync, so only changes are
written to the array - and in case that we have to restore, the
read-performance is good).

CU, Lars.

Re: [linux-lvm] 3Ware [OT] (was: Logical Volume max-size?)

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "BS" == Benjamin Scott <bscott@ntisys.com> writes:

BS>   I ask because we have had success with their 6200 series as a
BS> mirrored drive controller, and have found 3Ware to be reasonably
BS> responsive.  We have not had the opportunity to try their RAID5
BS> offerings yet, and your comments certainly do not inspire
BS> confidence.

Why not?  The card works as advertised.  It supports RAID5.  It does
not do RAID5 very fast.  I wouldn't call it slow, but there are
controllers that do RAID5 faster, and software RAID5 will outperform
the card as well.  Since they publish performance numbers, all you
have to do is see if it's fast enough for you.

BS> I am wondering if it is an issue that can be corrected by, e.g., a
BS> firmware update, or if it is just a design flaw in the cards.

No design flaw; they were simply not originally designed to do RAID5.
People asked for it, so they implemented it.  The card just doesn't
have enough CPU horsepower to do everything at disk speed.  A 6810 is
still a great card for striping or mirroring and is quite cost
effective simply as a JBOD controller.

So BFD.  If you want blisteringly fast RAID5, buy a 7810 or a 7850.
You'll appreciate the 64-bit PCI anyway.

Anyway, this is all off topic and if this list didn't have a Reply-To:
set I wouldn't be replying here.  We do discuss this kind of thing on
linux-ide-arrays@lists.math.uh.edu.  It's run by Majordomo; send mail
to linux-ide-arrays-subscribe@lists.math.uh.edu to join.

 - J<

Re: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?

[Petro]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:56:57AM +0100, Goetz Bock wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Nov 17 '01 at 23:11, Petro wrote:
> >     Those 3ware cards rock. Lots of disk, fast and cheap. 
> While the cards may be cool, their raid 5 implementation sucks like
> hell.
    
    Ok. We don't use 5, we're using either 0 or 1 depending on the
    machine. 

> (Don't beat me to hard, I've a backup solution for my important data)

    We have lots of volitile DBs, and backups for a db that change
    massively over an hour is sort of pointless. 

-- 
Share and Enjoy.