From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [172.16.48.31]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6V7wohG004011 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 03:58:50 -0400 Received: from dot.freshdot.net (IDENT:c7b4ea6b28ee7a1aae1060ccbc2b331b@dot.freshdot.net [80.69.73.239]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6V7wlvc008048 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 03:58:49 -0400 Received: from ssmeenk by dot.freshdot.net with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G7Sfm-0008N5-51 for linux-lvm@redhat.com; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:58:46 +0200 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:58:46 +0200 From: Sander Smeenk Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Performance impact of LVM Message-ID: <20060731075846.GA32150@freshdot.net> References: <20060727120250.GB17454@freshdot.net> <44C8DC2D.3000408@conterra.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@redhat.com Quoting Mark H. Wood (mwood@IUPUI.Edu): > Some uses of LVM *could* increase I/O wait time. It's easy to paste new > extents onto existing volumes, and the new extent probably won't be > contiguous with the old one. So you *could* see longer average seek > delays due to additional arm travel distance between extents. It's > strongly dependent on access patterns. Hmm. Yeah, this setup i'm using was created and thereafter never changed (yet). So i guess it should all still be contiguous... Thanks for the info though. I'll see if i can do some tests when i get my new hardware to play with. But as said before, it's probably not even measurable. The added latency that is... Thanks! Sander. -- | The older you get, the better you realize you were. | 1024D/08CEC94D - 34B3 3314 B146 E13C 70C8 9BDB D463 7E41 08CE C94D