* [linux-lvm] LVM System
@ 2002-03-04 15:39 Anthony W. Marino
2002-03-04 15:51 ` lembark
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining the quality
on the following combination would be greatly appreciated:
LVM 1.x
3Ware 7800 Raid Controller
Maxtor 40GB harddrives
XFS Journalling FS
SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux
Thank You,
Anthony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 15:39 [linux-lvm] LVM System Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 15:51 ` lembark 2002-03-04 16:03 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 16:00 ` Theo Van Dinter ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: lembark @ 2002-03-04 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm -- "Anthony W. Marino" <anthony@AWMObjects.com> on 03/04/02 16:39:10 -0500 > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining the quality > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > LVM 1.x > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > XFS Journalling FS > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux Striped LVM on RAID5 is a nice, flexable way to go. If you set the individual raid stripes at an I/O page (normally 4K on linux) and then stripe across the PV's the I/O gets spread nicely across plenty of paths. Using a stripe == I/O size avoids the "write penalty" in RAID5, the Raid Controller and drives do a nice job of buffering and the whole thing should work nicely. -- Steven Lembark 2930 W. Palmer Workhorse Computing Chicago, IL 60647 +1 800 762 1582 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 15:51 ` lembark @ 2002-03-04 16:03 ` Anthony W. Marino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm, lembark On Monday 04 March 2002 04:49 pm, lembark@wrkhors.com wrote: > -- "Anthony W. Marino" <anthony@AWMObjects.com> on 03/04/02 16:39:10 -0500 > > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining the quality > > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > > > LVM 1.x > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > XFS Journalling FS > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > Striped LVM on RAID5 is a nice, flexable way to go. > If you set the individual raid stripes at an I/O page > (normally 4K on linux) and then stripe across the > PV's the I/O gets spread nicely across plenty of paths. > Using a stripe == I/O size avoids the "write penalty" in > RAID5, the Raid Controller and drives do a nice job of > buffering and the whole thing should work nicely. Do you recommend any particular kernel release? Where could I find good instructions on putting it all together? Thank You, Anthony ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 15:39 [linux-lvm] LVM System Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 15:51 ` lembark @ 2002-03-04 16:00 ` Theo Van Dinter 2002-03-04 16:07 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 16:12 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 17:39 ` Steve Wray 2002-03-04 18:39 ` Goetz Bock 3 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Theo Van Dinter @ 2002-03-04 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 04:39:10PM -0500, Anthony W. Marino wrote: > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining the quality > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > LVM 1.x > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > XFS Journalling FS > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux My only comment is that my new setup (specs below) has worked nicely on a production machine for about a month now. LVM 1.0.1-rc4 3Ware 7410 RAID Controller 2x IBM 60GB hard drives XFS Filesystem RedHat 7.2 -- Randomly Generated Tagline: #define NULL 0 /* silly thing is, we don't even use this */ -- Larry Wall in perl.c from the perl source code ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 16:00 ` Theo Van Dinter @ 2002-03-04 16:07 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 16:11 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 16:27 ` Theo Van Dinter 2002-03-04 16:12 ` Anthony W. Marino 1 sibling, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm, Theo Van Dinter On Monday 04 March 2002 05:00 pm, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 04:39:10PM -0500, Anthony W. Marino wrote: > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining the quality > > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > > > LVM 1.x > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > XFS Journalling FS > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > My only comment is that my new setup (specs below) has worked nicely on a > production machine for about a month now. > > LVM 1.0.1-rc4 > 3Ware 7410 RAID Controller > 2x IBM 60GB hard drives > XFS Filesystem > RedHat 7.2 When I went to 3ware for 7800 driver for SuSE I didn't find one for that particular release. I found one for SuSE 7.0 and wonder if I could use that one for my SuSE 7.3 system. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 16:07 ` Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 16:11 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 16:27 ` Theo Van Dinter 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm, Theo Van Dinter On Monday 04 March 2002 05:07 pm, Anthony W. Marino wrote: > On Monday 04 March 2002 05:00 pm, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 04:39:10PM -0500, Anthony W. Marino wrote: > > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining the > > > quality on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > > > > > LVM 1.x > > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > > XFS Journalling FS > > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > > > My only comment is that my new setup (specs below) has worked nicely on a > > production machine for about a month now. > > > > LVM 1.0.1-rc4 > > 3Ware 7410 RAID Controller > > 2x IBM 60GB hard drives > > XFS Filesystem > > RedHat 7.2 > > When I went to 3ware for 7800 driver for SuSE I didn't find one for that > particular release. I found one for SuSE 7.0 and wonder if I could use > that one for my SuSE 7.3 system. > I think I found an reply to an old message from me that states it would work just fine. How do you like the 7410? > _______________________________________________ > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 16:07 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 16:11 ` Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 16:27 ` Theo Van Dinter 2002-03-04 16:39 ` Anthony W. Marino 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Theo Van Dinter @ 2002-03-04 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony W. Marino; +Cc: linux-lvm On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 05:07:03PM -0500, Anthony W. Marino wrote: > When I went to 3ware for 7800 driver for SuSE I didn't find one for that > particular release. I found one for SuSE 7.0 and wonder if I could use that > one for my SuSE 7.3 system. > I think I found an reply to an old message from me that states it would work > just fine. How do you like the 7410? > What RAID configuration are you running? It's the 3w-xxxx kernel module. It seems to be standard in the 2.4.x series kernels, I didn't have to do any compiling to get it to work. I don't know what kernel the SuSE distros use though. The 7410 works nicely. I only planned to do RAID1, so I didn't go for the extra cache 7450. The only thing I don't like about it so far is the RAID manager tool that you get from 3ware has a really terribly installation script (let's figure out which distro I'm running on based on the kernel version I'm running... yeah! <G>) So I haven't installed it yet. It's also looking like they only have a GUI tool, which means it'll be difficult getting a monitor setup to watch for failed disks. :( -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "I hear you collect plants. So does my wife." - Napoleon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 16:27 ` Theo Van Dinter @ 2002-03-04 16:39 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 21:21 ` Theo Van Dinter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm, Theo Van Dinter On Monday 04 March 2002 05:27 pm, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 05:07:03PM -0500, Anthony W. Marino wrote: > > When I went to 3ware for 7800 driver for SuSE I didn't find one for that > > particular release. I found one for SuSE 7.0 and wonder if I could use > > that one for my SuSE 7.3 system. > > > > I think I found an reply to an old message from me that states it would > > work just fine. How do you like the 7410? > > > > What RAID configuration are you running? > > It's the 3w-xxxx kernel module. It seems to be standard in the 2.4.x > series kernels, I didn't have to do any compiling to get it to work. I > don't know what kernel the SuSE distros use though. > I don't understand. Are you saying the all the software I need is contained within my kernel or do I still need to get a driver from 3Ware? I'm running SuSE Mantel 2.4.18 which the changes text states it has 2.4.19-pre1 as well as XFS. > The 7410 works nicely. I only planned to do RAID1, so I didn't go for the > extra cache 7450. The only thing I don't like about it so far is the RAID > manager tool that you get from 3ware has a really terribly installation > script (let's figure out which distro I'm running on based on the kernel > version I'm running... yeah! <G>) So I haven't installed it yet. It's > also looking like they only have a GUI tool, which means it'll be difficult > getting a monitor setup to watch for failed disks. :( ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 16:39 ` Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 21:21 ` Theo Van Dinter 2002-03-04 21:36 ` Anthony W. Marino 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Theo Van Dinter @ 2002-03-04 21:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony W. Marino; +Cc: linux-lvm On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 05:39:09PM -0500, Anthony W. Marino wrote: > I don't understand. Are you saying the all the software I need is contained > within my kernel or do I still need to get a driver from 3Ware? > I'm running SuSE Mantel 2.4.18 which the changes text states it has > 2.4.19-pre1 as well as XFS. When I installed the SGI 1.0.2 kernel on my machine (2.4.9), it already had the latest (1.02.00.008) 3w-xxxx module in place. I doubt the SGI folks added it, so I'm assuming it's a standard module in the 2.4.x series kernels. If you want the "manager" software (which really just lets you see status/configuration), that's a seperate piece you can download. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: There's often more than one correct thing. There's often more than one right thing. There's often more than one obvious thing. -- Larry Wall in <199806201726.KAA26569@wall.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 21:21 ` Theo Van Dinter @ 2002-03-04 21:36 ` Anthony W. Marino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theo Van Dinter; +Cc: linux-lvm On Monday 04 March 2002 10:21 pm, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 05:39:09PM -0500, Anthony W. Marino wrote: > > I don't understand. Are you saying the all the software I need is > > contained within my kernel or do I still need to get a driver from 3Ware? > > I'm running SuSE Mantel 2.4.18 which the changes text states it has > > 2.4.19-pre1 as well as XFS. > > When I installed the SGI 1.0.2 kernel on my machine (2.4.9), it already > had the latest (1.02.00.008) 3w-xxxx module in place. I doubt the SGI > folks added it, so I'm assuming it's a standard module in the 2.4.x > series kernels. > > If you want the "manager" software (which really just lets you see > status/configuration), that's a seperate piece you can download. Thank You, Anthony ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 16:00 ` Theo Van Dinter 2002-03-04 16:07 ` Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 16:12 ` Anthony W. Marino 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm, Theo Van Dinter On Monday 04 March 2002 05:00 pm, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 04:39:10PM -0500, Anthony W. Marino wrote: > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining the quality > > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > > > LVM 1.x > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > XFS Journalling FS > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > My only comment is that my new setup (specs below) has worked nicely on a > production machine for about a month now. > > LVM 1.0.1-rc4 > 3Ware 7410 RAID Controller > 2x IBM 60GB hard drives > XFS Filesystem > RedHat 7.2 What RAID configuration are you running? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* RE: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 15:39 [linux-lvm] LVM System Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 15:51 ` lembark 2002-03-04 16:00 ` Theo Van Dinter @ 2002-03-04 17:39 ` Steve Wray 2002-03-04 17:50 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 17:53 ` Austin Gonyou 2002-03-04 18:39 ` Goetz Bock 3 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Steve Wray @ 2002-03-04 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm I'd recommend ext3 with data journalling for sensitive filesystems. Its slower than XFS but (seems to) scale better with striping and large files. XFS performance (seems to) fall off very rapidly as file size exceeds buffer size. XFS only journals metadata. So on event of a crash, the filesystem structure will (likely) be sound, but theres no guarantee that the data blocks will be uncorrupted!!! XFS is very nice tho, in that volumes and filesystems can be grown with no downtime at all (without even unmounting). You might want to do some benchmarking before committing to a build (thats recently saved my butt actually). > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 10:39 a.m. > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > Subject: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining the quality > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > LVM 1.x > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > XFS Journalling FS > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > > Thank You, > Anthony > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 17:39 ` Steve Wray @ 2002-03-04 17:50 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 18:01 ` Steve Wray 2002-03-04 17:53 ` Austin Gonyou 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm, Steve Wray On Monday 04 March 2002 06:39 pm, Steve Wray wrote: > I'd recommend ext3 with data journalling for sensitive > filesystems. Its slower than XFS but (seems to) scale better with > striping and large files. XFS performance (seems to) fall off > very rapidly as file size exceeds buffer size. > > XFS only journals metadata. So on event of a crash, > the filesystem structure will (likely) be sound, but theres > no guarantee that the data blocks will be uncorrupted!!! > > XFS is very nice tho, in that volumes and filesystems can > be grown with no downtime at all (without even unmounting). > > You might want to do some benchmarking before committing > to a build (thats recently saved my butt actually). It was recommended to me that all large file systems have best performance with XFS. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 10:39 a.m. > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > > Subject: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining the quality > > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > > > LVM 1.x > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > XFS Journalling FS > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > > > > > Thank You, > > Anthony > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* RE: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 17:50 ` Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 18:01 ` Steve Wray 2002-03-04 18:12 ` Austin Gonyou 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Steve Wray @ 2002-03-04 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm Well, thats possible. The best thing to do is run benchmarks (I like iozone) on the proposed system and see what works best. The tests I did were just on small filesystems (1G volumes, 64M, 128M and 196M RAM). Filesizes I tested were only up to 500M or so. I found that while most tested filesystems (reiser, XFS, ext3 and vfat) did drop off in performance as filesize increased, XFS dropped off the most rapidly in that dimension. ext3 was the most stable (in performance as filesize increased), though its small filesize performance was the worst. XFS looked like kinda the opposite! :) Reiser had the worst write performance of all of them, but admirable read. YMMV. > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 12:50 p.m. > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com; Steve Wray > Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > On Monday 04 March 2002 06:39 pm, Steve Wray wrote: > > I'd recommend ext3 with data journalling for sensitive > > filesystems. Its slower than XFS but (seems to) scale better with > > striping and large files. XFS performance (seems to) fall off > > very rapidly as file size exceeds buffer size. > > > > XFS only journals metadata. So on event of a crash, > > the filesystem structure will (likely) be sound, but theres > > no guarantee that the data blocks will be uncorrupted!!! > > > > XFS is very nice tho, in that volumes and filesystems can > > be grown with no downtime at all (without even unmounting). > > > > You might want to do some benchmarking before committing > > to a build (thats recently saved my butt actually). > > It was recommended to me that all large file systems have best > performance > with XFS. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 10:39 a.m. > > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > > > Subject: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining > the quality > > > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > > > > > LVM 1.x > > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > > XFS Journalling FS > > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > > > > > > > > Thank You, > > > Anthony > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* RE: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 18:01 ` Steve Wray @ 2002-03-04 18:12 ` Austin Gonyou 2002-03-04 18:23 ` Steve Wray 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Austin Gonyou @ 2002-03-04 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm Hmm..that could be so, but I'm not sure if it's JUST xfs or if it's XFS/LVM. My largefile performance is excellent, as is my small file perfromance. On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 18:01, Steve Wray wrote: > Well, thats possible. The best thing to do is run > benchmarks (I like iozone) on the proposed > system and see what works best. > The tests I did were just on small filesystems (1G volumes, > 64M, 128M and 196M RAM). Filesizes I tested were only > up to 500M or so. > I found that while most tested filesystems (reiser, XFS, > ext3 and vfat) did drop off in performance as filesize > increased, XFS dropped off the most rapidly in that > dimension. ext3 was the most stable (in performance as filesize > increased), though its small filesize performance was the worst. > XFS looked like kinda the opposite! > :) > Reiser had the worst write performance of all of them, > but admirable read. > > YMMV. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 12:50 p.m. > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com; Steve Wray > > Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > On Monday 04 March 2002 06:39 pm, Steve Wray wrote: > > > I'd recommend ext3 with data journalling for sensitive > > > filesystems. Its slower than XFS but (seems to) scale better with > > > striping and large files. XFS performance (seems to) fall off > > > very rapidly as file size exceeds buffer size. > > > > > > XFS only journals metadata. So on event of a crash, > > > the filesystem structure will (likely) be sound, but theres > > > no guarantee that the data blocks will be uncorrupted!!! > > > > > > XFS is very nice tho, in that volumes and filesystems can > > > be grown with no downtime at all (without even unmounting). > > > > > > You might want to do some benchmarking before committing > > > to a build (thats recently saved my butt actually). > > > > It was recommended to me that all large file systems have best > > performance > > with XFS. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > > > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 10:39 a.m. > > > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > > > > Subject: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining > > the quality > > > > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > > > > > > > LVM 1.x > > > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > > > XFS Journalling FS > > > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank You, > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. Phone: 512-698-7250 email: austin@coremetrics.com "It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it." Latin Proverb ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* RE: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 18:12 ` Austin Gonyou @ 2002-03-04 18:23 ` Steve Wray 2002-03-04 18:32 ` Austin Gonyou 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Steve Wray @ 2002-03-04 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm Fair enough; I have to admit that I did *no* benchmarking of a simple partitioned filesystem, only LVM. Its so *easy* to just make a new volume for benchmarking :) I was lazy... my bad! > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > Behalf Of Austin Gonyou > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 1:12 p.m. > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > Subject: RE: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > Hmm..that could be so, but I'm not sure if it's JUST xfs or if it's > XFS/LVM. My largefile performance is excellent, as is my small file > perfromance. > > On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 18:01, Steve Wray wrote: > > Well, thats possible. The best thing to do is run > > benchmarks (I like iozone) on the proposed > > system and see what works best. > > The tests I did were just on small filesystems (1G volumes, > > 64M, 128M and 196M RAM). Filesizes I tested were only > > up to 500M or so. > > I found that while most tested filesystems (reiser, XFS, > > ext3 and vfat) did drop off in performance as filesize > > increased, XFS dropped off the most rapidly in that > > dimension. ext3 was the most stable (in performance as filesize > > increased), though its small filesize performance was the worst. > > XFS looked like kinda the opposite! > > :) > > Reiser had the worst write performance of all of them, > > but admirable read. > > > > YMMV. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 12:50 p.m. > > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com; Steve Wray > > > Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > > > > On Monday 04 March 2002 06:39 pm, Steve Wray wrote: > > > > I'd recommend ext3 with data journalling for sensitive > > > > filesystems. Its slower than XFS but (seems to) scale better with > > > > striping and large files. XFS performance (seems to) fall off > > > > very rapidly as file size exceeds buffer size. > > > > > > > > XFS only journals metadata. So on event of a crash, > > > > the filesystem structure will (likely) be sound, but theres > > > > no guarantee that the data blocks will be uncorrupted!!! > > > > > > > > XFS is very nice tho, in that volumes and filesystems can > > > > be grown with no downtime at all (without even unmounting). > > > > > > > > You might want to do some benchmarking before committing > > > > to a build (thats recently saved my butt actually). > > > > > > It was recommended to me that all large file systems have best > > > performance > > > with XFS. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > > > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > > > > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 10:39 a.m. > > > > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > > > > > Subject: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining > > > the quality > > > > > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > > > > > > > > > LVM 1.x > > > > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > > > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > > > > XFS Journalling FS > > > > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank You, > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- > Austin Gonyou > Systems Architect, CCNA > Coremetrics, Inc. > Phone: 512-698-7250 > email: austin@coremetrics.com > > "It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it." > Latin Proverb > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* RE: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 18:23 ` Steve Wray @ 2002-03-04 18:32 ` Austin Gonyou 2002-03-04 18:38 ` Steve Wray 2002-03-04 18:46 ` Goetz Bock 0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Austin Gonyou @ 2002-03-04 18:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm Wooohoo!! That's for sure. BTW..are you using IDE or SCSI? That is an ENOURMOUS difference, I've found, to LVM/XFS performance Benchmarking. On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 18:23, Steve Wray wrote: > Fair enough; I have to admit that I did *no* benchmarking > of a simple partitioned filesystem, only LVM. > Its so *easy* to just make a new volume for benchmarking > :) > I was lazy... my bad! > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > Behalf Of Austin Gonyou > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 1:12 p.m. > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > > Subject: RE: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > Hmm..that could be so, but I'm not sure if it's JUST xfs or if it's > > XFS/LVM. My largefile performance is excellent, as is my small file > > perfromance. > > > > On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 18:01, Steve Wray wrote: > > > Well, thats possible. The best thing to do is run > > > benchmarks (I like iozone) on the proposed > > > system and see what works best. > > > The tests I did were just on small filesystems (1G volumes, > > > 64M, 128M and 196M RAM). Filesizes I tested were only > > > up to 500M or so. > > > I found that while most tested filesystems (reiser, XFS, > > > ext3 and vfat) did drop off in performance as filesize > > > increased, XFS dropped off the most rapidly in that > > > dimension. ext3 was the most stable (in performance as filesize > > > increased), though its small filesize performance was the worst. > > > XFS looked like kinda the opposite! > > > :) > > > Reiser had the worst write performance of all of them, > > > but admirable read. > > > > > > YMMV. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > > > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > > > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 12:50 p.m. > > > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com; Steve Wray > > > > Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday 04 March 2002 06:39 pm, Steve Wray wrote: > > > > > I'd recommend ext3 with data journalling for sensitive > > > > > filesystems. Its slower than XFS but (seems to) scale better > with > > > > > striping and large files. XFS performance (seems to) fall off > > > > > very rapidly as file size exceeds buffer size. > > > > > > > > > > XFS only journals metadata. So on event of a crash, > > > > > the filesystem structure will (likely) be sound, but theres > > > > > no guarantee that the data blocks will be uncorrupted!!! > > > > > > > > > > XFS is very nice tho, in that volumes and filesystems can > > > > > be grown with no downtime at all (without even unmounting). > > > > > > > > > > You might want to do some benchmarking before committing > > > > > to a build (thats recently saved my butt actually). > > > > > > > > It was recommended to me that all large file systems have best > > > > performance > > > > with XFS. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > > > > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > > > > > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 10:39 a.m. > > > > > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > > > > > > Subject: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining > > > > the quality > > > > > > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > > > > > > > > > > > LVM 1.x > > > > > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > > > > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > > > > > XFS Journalling FS > > > > > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank You, > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > -- > > Austin Gonyou > > Systems Architect, CCNA > > Coremetrics, Inc. > > Phone: 512-698-7250 > > email: austin@coremetrics.com > > > > "It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin > it." > > Latin Proverb > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. Phone: 512-698-7250 email: austin@coremetrics.com "It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it." Latin Proverb ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* RE: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 18:32 ` Austin Gonyou @ 2002-03-04 18:38 ` Steve Wray 2002-03-04 18:46 ` Goetz Bock 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Steve Wray @ 2002-03-04 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm My benchmarking was done on IDE, with an offboard controller and 4 drives as masters. There should be some more info in the list archive; I posted some burble here not long ago, describing just what I was doing. I described it as 'poor mans RAID'. > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > Behalf Of Austin Gonyou > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 1:32 p.m. > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > Subject: RE: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > Wooohoo!! That's for sure. > > BTW..are you using IDE or SCSI? > > That is an ENOURMOUS difference, I've found, to LVM/XFS performance > Benchmarking. > > On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 18:23, Steve Wray wrote: > > Fair enough; I have to admit that I did *no* benchmarking > > of a simple partitioned filesystem, only LVM. > > Its so *easy* to just make a new volume for benchmarking > > :) > > I was lazy... my bad! > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > > Behalf Of Austin Gonyou > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 1:12 p.m. > > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > > > Subject: RE: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > > > > Hmm..that could be so, but I'm not sure if it's JUST xfs or if it's > > > XFS/LVM. My largefile performance is excellent, as is my small file > > > perfromance. > > > > > > On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 18:01, Steve Wray wrote: > > > > Well, thats possible. The best thing to do is run > > > > benchmarks (I like iozone) on the proposed > > > > system and see what works best. > > > > The tests I did were just on small filesystems (1G volumes, > > > > 64M, 128M and 196M RAM). Filesizes I tested were only > > > > up to 500M or so. > > > > I found that while most tested filesystems (reiser, XFS, > > > > ext3 and vfat) did drop off in performance as filesize > > > > increased, XFS dropped off the most rapidly in that > > > > dimension. ext3 was the most stable (in performance as filesize > > > > increased), though its small filesize performance was the worst. > > > > XFS looked like kinda the opposite! > > > > :) > > > > Reiser had the worst write performance of all of them, > > > > but admirable read. > > > > > > > > YMMV. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > > > > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > > > > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 12:50 p.m. > > > > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com; Steve Wray > > > > > Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday 04 March 2002 06:39 pm, Steve Wray wrote: > > > > > > I'd recommend ext3 with data journalling for sensitive > > > > > > filesystems. Its slower than XFS but (seems to) scale better > > with > > > > > > striping and large files. XFS performance (seems to) fall off > > > > > > very rapidly as file size exceeds buffer size. > > > > > > > > > > > > XFS only journals metadata. So on event of a crash, > > > > > > the filesystem structure will (likely) be sound, but theres > > > > > > no guarantee that the data blocks will be uncorrupted!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > XFS is very nice tho, in that volumes and filesystems can > > > > > > be grown with no downtime at all (without even unmounting). > > > > > > > > > > > > You might want to do some benchmarking before committing > > > > > > to a build (thats recently saved my butt actually). > > > > > > > > > > It was recommended to me that all large file systems have best > > > > > performance > > > > > with XFS. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > > > > > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > > > > > > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 10:39 a.m. > > > > > > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > > > > > > > Subject: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining > > > > > the quality > > > > > > > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LVM 1.x > > > > > > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > > > > > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > > > > > > XFS Journalling FS > > > > > > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank You, > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > -- > > > Austin Gonyou > > > Systems Architect, CCNA > > > Coremetrics, Inc. > > > Phone: 512-698-7250 > > > email: austin@coremetrics.com > > > > > > "It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin > > it." > > > Latin Proverb > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- > Austin Gonyou > Systems Architect, CCNA > Coremetrics, Inc. > Phone: 512-698-7250 > email: austin@coremetrics.com > > "It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it." > Latin Proverb > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 18:32 ` Austin Gonyou 2002-03-04 18:38 ` Steve Wray @ 2002-03-04 18:46 ` Goetz Bock 2002-03-04 19:58 ` Petro 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Goetz Bock @ 2002-03-04 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm On Mon, Mar 04 '02 at 18:32, Austin Gonyou wrote: > Wooohoo!! That's for sure. > > BTW..are you using IDE or SCSI? > > That is an ENOURMOUS difference, I've found, to LVM/XFS performance > Benchmarking. > > On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 18:23, Steve Wray wrote: > > > [ 158 lines janked ] <rant> Well, I know that it's november for ever (since AOL did connect to the internet, usenet actually). But people, please learn to quote. It was impossible to figure out WHAT you where refering, too. see e.g. http://www.inet.bg/faq/netiquete.html </rant> Sorry, please keep up the good work with LVM, Goetz. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 18:46 ` Goetz Bock @ 2002-03-04 19:58 ` Petro 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Petro @ 2002-03-04 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 01:46:08AM +0100, Goetz Bock wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 04 '02 at 18:32, Austin Gonyou wrote: > > Wooohoo!! That's for sure. > > > > BTW..are you using IDE or SCSI? > > > > That is an ENOURMOUS difference, I've found, to LVM/XFS performance > > Benchmarking. > > > > On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 18:23, Steve Wray wrote: > > > > [ 158 lines janked ] > <rant> > Well, I know that it's november for ever (since AOL did connect to the > internet, usenet actually). ITYM September. http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/September-that-never-ended.html > But people, please learn to quote. Hear Hear!. -- Share and Enjoy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* RE: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 17:39 ` Steve Wray 2002-03-04 17:50 ` Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 17:53 ` Austin Gonyou 2002-03-04 18:18 ` Anthony W. Marino 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Austin Gonyou @ 2002-03-04 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 17:39, Steve Wray wrote: > I'd recommend ext3 with data journalling for sensitive > filesystems. Its slower than XFS but (seems to) scale better with > striping and large files. XFS performance (seems to) fall off > very rapidly as file size exceeds buffer size. > > XFS only journals metadata. So on event of a crash, > the filesystem structure will (likely) be sound, but theres > no guarantee that the data blocks will be uncorrupted!!! > > XFS is very nice tho, in that volumes and filesystems can > be grown with no downtime at all (without even unmounting). > > You might want to do some benchmarking before committing > to a build (thats recently saved my butt actually). > I've only got a couple of things to say in the regard about XFS and performance Falling off. XFS's performance doesn't fall off in the respects you've spoken about. It's a misconception when using LVM, or evms, etc along with XFS. I ran into a similar issue, and was convinced it was XFS or LVM, etc. This is in the relation of using XFS and LVM, vs. XFS with no LVM, and then testing increasing filesizes with iozone. What I found was that dbench, and iozone both did not perform very well with respect to software raid or striping, but that in fact the filesystems themselves performed about 100% faster than without LVM striping or LVM Concat. So much faster that my database guys noticed the enourmous increase in speed on a test setup I created for them. One was using LVM, one was not, with XFS. The one which was NOT using LVM had a hardware stripe setup with write-back caching and adaptive read-ahead. The controller has 128MB pc100Dimm. Using a 3 drive RAID 0 hardware, vs 3 drives striped with LVM was an enourmous downgrade when benchmarking..but actual use, db inserts, file create, etc, ran >100% faster than with Hardware striping. I did the same test with Reiser and Ext2/3, none fared as well, but they all did better with LVM and striping than without. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 10:39 a.m. > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > > Subject: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining the > quality > > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > > > LVM 1.x > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > XFS Journalling FS > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > > > > > Thank You, > > Anthony > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. Phone: 512-698-7250 email: austin@coremetrics.com "It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it." Latin Proverb ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 17:53 ` Austin Gonyou @ 2002-03-04 18:18 ` Anthony W. Marino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm, Austin Gonyou On Monday 04 March 2002 06:53 pm, Austin Gonyou wrote: > On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 17:39, Steve Wray wrote: > > I'd recommend ext3 with data journalling for sensitive > > filesystems. Its slower than XFS but (seems to) scale better with > > striping and large files. XFS performance (seems to) fall off > > very rapidly as file size exceeds buffer size. > > > > XFS only journals metadata. So on event of a crash, > > the filesystem structure will (likely) be sound, but theres > > no guarantee that the data blocks will be uncorrupted!!! > > > > XFS is very nice tho, in that volumes and filesystems can > > be grown with no downtime at all (without even unmounting). > > > > You might want to do some benchmarking before committing > > to a build (thats recently saved my butt actually). > > I've only got a couple of things to say in the regard about XFS and > performance Falling off. > > XFS's performance doesn't fall off in the respects you've spoken about. > It's a misconception when using LVM, or evms, etc along with XFS. > > I ran into a similar issue, and was convinced it was XFS or LVM, etc. > This is in the relation of using XFS and LVM, vs. XFS with no LVM, and > then testing increasing filesizes with iozone. > > What I found was that dbench, and iozone both did not perform very well > with respect to software raid or striping, but that in fact the > filesystems themselves performed about 100% faster than without LVM > striping or LVM Concat. > > So much faster that my database guys noticed the enourmous increase in > speed on a test setup I created for them. One was using LVM, one was > not, with XFS. The one which was NOT using LVM had a hardware stripe > setup with write-back caching and adaptive read-ahead. The controller > has 128MB pc100Dimm. Using a 3 drive RAID 0 hardware, vs 3 drives > striped with LVM was an enourmous downgrade when benchmarking..but > actual use, db inserts, file create, etc, ran >100% faster than with > Hardware striping. > > I did the same test with Reiser and Ext2/3, none fared as well, but they > all did better with LVM and striping than without. > What kernel release and XFS version are you using? Anthony > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > > > > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > > > > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 10:39 a.m. > > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > > > Subject: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining the > > > > quality > > > > > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > > > > > LVM 1.x > > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > > XFS Journalling FS > > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > > > > > > > > Thank You, > > > Anthony > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 15:39 [linux-lvm] LVM System Anthony W. Marino ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2002-03-04 17:39 ` Steve Wray @ 2002-03-04 18:39 ` Goetz Bock 2002-03-04 18:47 ` Anthony W. Marino 3 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Goetz Bock @ 2002-03-04 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm On Mon, Mar 04 '02 at 16:39, Anthony W. Marino wrote: > LVM 1.x good idea > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller what do you want to go for? RAID5 > Maxtor 40GB harddrives All IDE drives are about the same, but I'm running softraid5 with 4x60GB and 6x80GB, all Maxtor > XFS Journalling FS I'm using ReiserFS and ext3 (both in production), and am about to move from reiserFS to ext3. Except for special purpose (e.g. my MP3 base, and an thousends off small files (1-10k) box) > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux IMHO, don't use SuSE, pick one of the real RPM based distributions. If you want everything provided go for RedHat or Mandrake, if you want a real server (and know how to compile your kernel) go for trustix. Some more comments: - don't use striping on RAID5. It is not going to work (well, if you have two RAID5 sets it will, but that's a waste of disk space) - this ony appiles to my bad expirience with the 6xxx 3ware controllers: test wether softRAID with the linux kernel is not faster than the hardware RAID (well, you can not boot from softRAID as comfortable as you can from hardware RAID) - install the 3ware tool, the 3dm is a deamon that is configurateable from a web page (only runs on localhost, and has (for sure) some security holes). It can send mails on errors, too. (AFAIR the install script is realy broken, don't run it, do it by hand) - with a 2.4.xx kernel you do not need a special driver - I've a 6800 for sale. i switched my home filebase over to 3 promise controllers. They can do powersaving while I'm at work. Cu, Goetz. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 18:39 ` Goetz Bock @ 2002-03-04 18:47 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 18:51 ` Goetz Bock 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm, Goetz Bock On Monday 04 March 2002 07:39 pm, Goetz Bock wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04 '02 at 16:39, Anthony W. Marino wrote: > > LVM 1.x > > good idea > > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > what do you want to go for? RAID5 RAID5 > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > All IDE drives are about the same, but I'm running softraid5 with 4x60GB > and 6x80GB, all Maxtor > > > XFS Journalling FS > > I'm using ReiserFS and ext3 (both in production), and am about to move > from reiserFS to ext3. Except for special purpose (e.g. my MP3 base, and > an thousends off small files (1-10k) box) > > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > IMHO, don't use SuSE, pick one of the real RPM based distributions. > If you want everything provided go for RedHat or Mandrake, if you want a > real server (and know how to compile your kernel) go for trustix. Why don't you think that SuSE isn't a real server OS??? > Some more comments: > - don't use striping on RAID5. It is not going to work (well, if you > have two RAID5 sets it will, but that's a waste of disk space) > - this ony appiles to my bad expirience with the 6xxx 3ware controllers: > test wether softRAID with the linux kernel is not faster than the > hardware RAID > (well, you can not boot from softRAID as comfortable as you can from > hardware RAID) I have 4x40GB Maxtor drives and haven't determined what my final configuration will be. > - install the 3ware tool, the 3dm is a deamon that is configurateable > from a web page (only runs on localhost, and has (for sure) some > security holes). It can send mails on errors, too. > (AFAIR the install script is realy broken, don't run it, do it by > hand) > - with a 2.4.xx kernel you do not need a special driver > - I've a 6800 for sale. i switched my home filebase over to 3 promise > controllers. They can do powersaving while I'm at work. > Where do I find this 3ware tool? Thanks, Anthony > Cu, > Goetz. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System 2002-03-04 18:47 ` Anthony W. Marino @ 2002-03-04 18:51 ` Goetz Bock 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Goetz Bock @ 2002-03-04 18:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm On Mon, Mar 04 '02 at 19:47, Anthony W. Marino wrote: > Why don't you think that SuSE isn't a real server OS??? It was just MHO, use what ever you're comfortable with, but see my private email > I have 4x40GB Maxtor drives and haven't determined what my final > configuration will be. As others have said, do some test runs. > Where do I find this 3ware tool? It's in the tools package you can download from the 3ware side (last I checked the side required javascipt, so I can/will not look it up for you) Cu, Goetz. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-03-04 21:36 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2002-03-04 15:39 [linux-lvm] LVM System Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 15:51 ` lembark 2002-03-04 16:03 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 16:00 ` Theo Van Dinter 2002-03-04 16:07 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 16:11 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 16:27 ` Theo Van Dinter 2002-03-04 16:39 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 21:21 ` Theo Van Dinter 2002-03-04 21:36 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 16:12 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 17:39 ` Steve Wray 2002-03-04 17:50 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 18:01 ` Steve Wray 2002-03-04 18:12 ` Austin Gonyou 2002-03-04 18:23 ` Steve Wray 2002-03-04 18:32 ` Austin Gonyou 2002-03-04 18:38 ` Steve Wray 2002-03-04 18:46 ` Goetz Bock 2002-03-04 19:58 ` Petro 2002-03-04 17:53 ` Austin Gonyou 2002-03-04 18:18 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 18:39 ` Goetz Bock 2002-03-04 18:47 ` Anthony W. Marino 2002-03-04 18:51 ` Goetz Bock
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.