From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Russell Coker Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LILO configuration for LVM "boot" filesystem Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:26:20 +0200 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01060804262004.26916@lyta> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com, Steve Wray On Thursday 07 June 2001 23:52, Steve Wray wrote: > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On Behalf Of Steven Lembark > > > > > Tell me, what is wrong with having /tmp as a mount point > > > for a LV? > > > > LV are generally slower than other types of storage. Since the > > boot partition is generally cyl 0 it's on the fastest storage > > available (short of tmpfs). > > Proportionally, how much slower is it? 50%? 25%? 12%? > less than 1% slower? > Does it really matter? See my Bonnie++ web page, particularly the ZCAV part. The graph shows=20 the start of the disk being ~80% faster than the end. Try it out on your= =20 own drives! This isn't an LVM issue, it's a disk geometry layout issue. --=20 http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page