From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: mdadm raid5 with lvm: advantages? Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:49:45 +0500 Message-ID: <20110111234945.7c601067@natsu> References: <4D2CA32E.3030303@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/CbtJifDNDojscvuRQwloVld"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D2CA32E.3030303@gmail.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Zdenek Kaspar Cc: Richard Grundy , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/CbtJifDNDojscvuRQwloVld Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:36:30 +0100 Zdenek Kaspar wrote: > It makes sense to use LVM for virtualization and iSCSI to get rid of big > file images (unwanted fs overhead/fragmentation). But yes, in some use > cases this is OK. Since you mentioned fragmentation - there are ways to both make sparse file images, and to defragment them when needed (on some filesystems like XFS and btrfs). But when using LVM instead of file images, the user has neither: LVM can't have sparse LVs, and it can't (easily) defragment an LV that is fragmented over one or several PVs. Or am I missing something here? --=20 With respect, Roman --Sig_/CbtJifDNDojscvuRQwloVld Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk0spkkACgkQTLKSvz+PZwhI8gCglIDnrPrFGiFpJYr2Xqqxa0R7 w8UAniLih1j+7tyhdjAHC/7aLq48eaGX =k2KG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/CbtJifDNDojscvuRQwloVld--