[linux-lvm] LVM or LVM2?

[linux-lvm] LVM or LVM2?

[Yanick Quirion]

Hi all,
 
I want to implement LVM on a new system. The server will be a Fedora Core 1 and this distribution comes with utilities of LVM version 1.0.x. I also read some stuff about LVM2, but I can't figure out which one is the best solution. On a old system I use LVM 1.1RC2, but this version seems now to be unavailable.
 
So for my new server I just want to make the good decision. Which one, between the two, is the best solution for now and the future?
 
Thanks for your suggestion.
 
Best regards,


-----------
Yanick Quirion
Administrateur Réseau/Network Manager
NEOKIMIA INC.
Institut de Pharmacologie de Sherbrooke
3e étage (Édifice Z5)
3001 12e avenue Nord
Sherbrooke, Québec
CANADA
J1H 5N4
 
Tél.:    +1 819 820-6040
Direct:  +1 819 820-6855
Fax.:    +1 819 820-6841
 
email: Yanick.Quirion@neokimia.com

Re: [linux-lvm] LVM or LVM2?

[Jord Tanner]

I know this is the LVM list, and I may be shot for saying this, but I
have found EVMS to be fabulous. The curses based interface is good, and
the X interface is fantastic. Others will certainly have other opinions,
and as always YMMV.

Jord Tanner

On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 06:56, Yanick Quirion wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I want to implement LVM on a new system. The server will be a Fedora Core 1 and this distribution comes with utilities of LVM version 1.0.x. I also read some stuff about LVM2, but I can't figure out which one is the best solution. On a old system I use LVM 1.1RC2, but this version seems now to be unavailable.
>
> So for my new server I just want to make the good decision. Which one, between the two, is the best solution for now and the future?
>
> Thanks for your suggestion.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> -----------
> Yanick Quirion
> Administrateur Réseau/Network Manager
> NEOKIMIA INC.
> Institut de Pharmacologie de Sherbrooke
> 3e étage (Édifice Z5)
> 3001 12e avenue Nord
> Sherbrooke, Québec
> CANADA
> J1H 5N4
>
> Tél.:    +1 819 820-6040
> Direct:  +1 819 820-6855
> Fax.:    +1 819 820-6841
>
> email: Yanick.Quirion@neokimia.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
--
Jord Tanner <jord@indygecko.com>

RE: [linux-lvm] LVM or LVM2?

[more]

I have tried LVM1, LVM2 and EVMS, and I think LVM2 is the better choice.

Since from Linux kernel 2.6.0, the kernel only supports device-mapper (LVM2). So LVM2 is better than LVM1.
Actually for the user friendly interfaces, EVMS is better for user friendly. But for the robust and maintenance, LVM2 is better obviously.
I think robust and maintenance is most important for a storage server of course.


more


-----Original Message-----
From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On
Behalf Of Jord Tanner
Sent: 2003年12月6日 3:53
To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM or LVM2?


I know this is the LVM list, and I may be shot for saying this, but I
have found EVMS to be fabulous. The curses based interface is good, and
the X interface is fantastic. Others will certainly have other opinions,
and as always YMMV.

Jord Tanner

On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 06:56, Yanick Quirion wrote:
> Hi all,
>  
> I want to implement LVM on a new system. The server will be a Fedora Core 1 and this distribution comes with utilities of LVM version 1.0.x. I also read some stuff about LVM2, but I can't figure out which one is the best solution. On a old system I use LVM 1.1RC2, but this version seems now to be unavailable.
>  
> So for my new server I just want to make the good decision. Which one, between the two, is the best solution for now and the future?
>  
> Thanks for your suggestion.
>  
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> -----------
> Yanick Quirion
> Administrateur Réseau/Network Manager
> NEOKIMIA INC.
> Institut de Pharmacologie de Sherbrooke
> 3e étage (édifice Z5)
> 3001 12e avenue Nord
> Sherbrooke, Québec
> CANADA
> J1H 5N4
>  
> Tél.:    +1 819 820-6040
> Direct:  +1 819 820-6855
> Fax.:    +1 819 820-6841
>  
> email: Yanick.Quirion@neokimia.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
-- 
Jord Tanner <jord@indygecko.com>


_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@sistina.com
http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/

[linux-lvm] lvm or lvm2?

[Matthew Daubenspeck]

I am in the process of planning out a medium sized server (500 users,
500GB) to host user accounts in our school district. I will be using
Samba...

Do you think using LVM is a reliable method of sharing home directories?
I have been reading the lists, and I notice that in a lot of cases, if
one drive dies, you usually lose a lot of information.

If so, should I be looking at LVM or LVM2? I haven't seen a comparison
sheet on what 2 offers over the standard...

Thanks for your help.
-- 
  Matthew Daubenspeck
  http://www.oddprocess.org

14:26:00 up 1 day, 5:44, 1 user, load average: 0.06, 0.02, 0.00

Re: [linux-lvm] lvm or lvm2?

[Craig Ringer]

On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 03:29, Matthew Daubenspeck wrote:

> Do you think using LVM is a reliable method of sharing home directories?
> I have been reading the lists, and I notice that in a lot of cases, if
> one drive dies, you usually lose a lot of information.

That's why you should really only use it on top of redundant storage
like RAID 1 or RAID 5, or in situations where you can afford the risk of
data loss (scratch volumes, hot archives, etc). 

I guess that by its self, LVM could be seen as having many of the same
issues as RAID-0 in terms of data safety - but you're more likely to be
able to do partial recovery with LVM.

I run LVM on a RAID 1 array and a large RAID 5 array, and while I've had
disk failures, I've never suffered any data loss because the layer below
LVM is properly redundant.

Craig Ringer

Re: [linux-lvm] lvm or lvm2?

[Ken Fuchs]

>On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 03:29, Matthew Daubenspeck wrote:

>> Do you think using LVM is a reliable method of sharing home directories?
>> I have been reading the lists, and I notice that in a lot of cases, if
>> one drive dies, you usually lose a lot of information.

Craig Ringer wrote:

>That's why you should really only use it on top of redundant storage
>like RAID 1 or RAID 5, or in situations where you can afford the risk of
>data loss (scratch volumes, hot archives, etc). 

I agree that RAID 5 is a great idea for important data and is the
appropriate layer under LVM for the redundancy that large numbers of
home directories demand.

>I guess that by its self, LVM could be seen as having many of the same
>issues as RAID-0 in terms of data safety - but you're more likely to be
>able to do partial recovery with LVM.

This probably assumes multiple disks in a single volume group.  

The following would be appropriate to a single person workstation:

Although it reduces the flexibility of LVM, creating a volume group per
disk has the advantage that a disk becoming bad loses only the logical
volumes that were on that disk.

I find that this works great for Sun workstations which have two
internal SCA drives.  A single SCA drive can be swapped between
machines easily since each drive "is" its own volume group.
Of course I allocate only a single large partition to a volume group.

Sincerely,

Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com>