* [linux-lvm] Data alignment
@ 2010-03-19 18:13 Phillip Susi
2010-03-19 18:36 ` Eugene Vilensky
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Phillip Susi @ 2010-03-19 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
I have been trying to get my logical volume to be aligned to a 512 KB
boundary on my SSD so it lines up with the flash erase block. I thought
I could do this with pvcreate --dataalign 1024, but this caused the data
to be aligned to a 1024 sector boundary within the partition, which
itself starts on sector 63. I then thought the --dataalignoffsest
switch would help, but specifying 63 there caused the data to be moved
to sector 1087. I tried giving it -63, but was told that a negative
number is not allowed. Why not? How can I get the data to start on
sector 1024-63 of the partition so it ends up on pysical sector 1024 of
the disk?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] Data alignment
2010-03-19 18:13 [linux-lvm] Data alignment Phillip Susi
@ 2010-03-19 18:36 ` Eugene Vilensky
2010-03-19 18:54 ` Phillip Susi
2010-03-19 19:25 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-03-20 23:02 ` [linux-lvm] Data alignment Stuart D. Gathman
2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Eugene Vilensky @ 2010-03-19 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LVM general discussion and development
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> I have been trying to get my logical volume to be aligned to a 512 KB
> boundary on my SSD so it lines up with the flash erase block. �I thought
> I could do this with pvcreate --dataalign 1024, but this caused the data
> to be aligned to a 1024 sector boundary within the partition, which
> itself starts on sector 63. �I then thought the --dataalignoffsest
> switch would help, but specifying 63 there caused the data to be moved
> to sector 1087. �I tried giving it -63, but was told that a negative
> number is not allowed. �Why not? �How can I get the data to start on
> sector 1024-63 of the partition so it ends up on pysical sector 1024 of
> the disk?
Align the partition?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] Data alignment
2010-03-19 18:36 ` Eugene Vilensky
@ 2010-03-19 18:54 ` Phillip Susi
2010-03-19 19:54 ` Ray Morris
2010-03-20 7:32 ` Luca Berra
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Phillip Susi @ 2010-03-19 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LVM general discussion and development
On 3/19/2010 2:36 PM, Eugene Vilensky wrote:
> Align the partition?
Then I waste 512k on the MBR, and another 512k on the pv header. I'd
like to avoid that if possible and it seems like --dataalignoffset
should let me do that, but it doesn't accept negative numbers.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] Data alignment
2010-03-19 18:54 ` Phillip Susi
@ 2010-03-19 19:54 ` Ray Morris
2010-03-19 21:20 ` Phillip Susi
2010-03-20 7:32 ` Luca Berra
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ray Morris @ 2010-03-19 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LVM general discussion and development
> Then I waste 512k on the MBR, and another 512k on the pv header.
> I'd like to avoid that if possible and it seems like --dataalignoffset
> should let me do that, but it doesn't accept negative numbers.
1 MB "wasted" on a 160,000 MB SDD = 99.999375% efficiency.
Inversely, that's 0.000625% "wasted", worth roughly 1/5 of
1 penny US, or $0.0002. Your time spent thinking about it - $25.
Also, 10,000 sysadmins on this list X 2 minutes = 3333 hours X
$100/hour = $333,333. I'd burn the 1MB and move on.
--
Ray Morris
support@bettercgi.com
Strongbox - The next generation in site security:
http://www.bettercgi.com/strongbox/
Throttlebox - Intelligent Bandwidth Control
http://www.bettercgi.com/throttlebox/
Strongbox / Throttlebox affiliate program:
http://www.bettercgi.com/affiliates/user/register.php
On 03/19/2010 01:54:52 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 3/19/2010 2:36 PM, Eugene Vilensky wrote:
> > Align the partition?
>
> Then I waste 512k on the MBR, and another 512k on the pv header. I'd
> like to avoid that if possible and it seems like --dataalignoffset
> should let me do that, but it doesn't accept negative numbers.
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] Data alignment
2010-03-19 18:54 ` Phillip Susi
2010-03-19 19:54 ` Ray Morris
@ 2010-03-20 7:32 ` Luca Berra
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Luca Berra @ 2010-03-20 7:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 02:54:52PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
>On 3/19/2010 2:36 PM, Eugene Vilensky wrote:
>> Align the partition?
>
>Then I waste 512k on the MBR, and another 512k on the pv header. I'd
>like to avoid that if possible and it seems like --dataalignoffset
>should let me do that, but it doesn't accept negative numbers.
then, just do not create the partition and use lvm on the whole disk :P
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] Data alignment
2010-03-19 18:13 [linux-lvm] Data alignment Phillip Susi
2010-03-19 18:36 ` Eugene Vilensky
@ 2010-03-19 19:25 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-03-19 21:27 ` Phillip Susi
2010-03-20 23:02 ` [linux-lvm] Data alignment Stuart D. Gathman
2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Mike Snitzer @ 2010-03-19 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LVM general discussion and development
On Fri, Mar 19 2010 at 2:13pm -0400,
Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> I have been trying to get my logical volume to be aligned to a 512 KB
> boundary on my SSD so it lines up with the flash erase block. I thought
> I could do this with pvcreate --dataalign 1024, but this caused the data
> to be aligned to a 1024 sector boundary within the partition, which
> itself starts on sector 63. I then thought the --dataalignoffsest
> switch would help, but specifying 63 there caused the data to be moved
> to sector 1087. I tried giving it -63, but was told that a negative
> number is not allowed. Why not? How can I get the data to start on
> sector 1024-63 of the partition so it ends up on pysical sector 1024 of
> the disk?
Which kernel and lvm2 are you using?
I'm assuming you have a recent lvm2 given the flags you're referring
to. But being precise when asking such questions is helpful.
Any reason why you'd like to use DOS partitioning (first primary
partition starting at 63rd sector)?
Anyway, if you have a recent kernel (e.g. 2.6.33) you'll be in good
shape regardless. If you create a partition on the device (using DOS
partitions) the kernel _should_ be aware of where the partition starts
and tell you how far you'd have to shift the start of your LVM2 PV data
area to get it perfectly aligned relative to the underlying physical
block size. Check for example:
# cat /sys/block/sda/sda1/alignment_offset
But if your device is using 512b physical_sector_size you'll just have a
0 for alignment_offset. Check physical_block_size with:
# cat /sys/block/sda/queue/physical_block_size
Also verify that your SSD device is naturally aligned (aka
alignment_offset=0); I'd wager it is naturally aligned:
# cat /sys/block/sda/alignment_offset
New versions of LVM2 (>= 2.02.51) support detecting alignment attributes
from the kernel. But the newer LVM2 is the better (there have been a
few related fixes over the LVM2 releases, as recently as 2.02.62).
All said, even if you have an older kernel, to manually get what you
want (shift start to account for DOS partition at 63rd sector, align PV
pe_start on a 512K boundary), please try:
# pvcreate --dataalignmentoffset 512b --dataalignment 512K ...
You'll note that the pe_start may not be where you'd first expect
(e.g. sector 1024-63); but it _should_ be aligned how you'd want it (on
a native 512K boundary). The reason for this is LVM reserves space at
the beginning of the PV. Check pe_start with:
# pvs -o+pe_start
Mike
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] Data alignment
2010-03-19 19:25 ` Mike Snitzer
@ 2010-03-19 21:27 ` Phillip Susi
2010-03-19 22:21 ` Mike Snitzer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Phillip Susi @ 2010-03-19 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LVM general discussion and development; +Cc: Mike Snitzer
On 3/19/2010 3:25 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Any reason why you'd like to use DOS partitioning (first primary
> partition starting at 63rd sector)?
Convention. I am looking into using GPT instead though.
> Anyway, if you have a recent kernel (e.g. 2.6.33) you'll be in good
> shape regardless. If you create a partition on the device (using DOS
> partitions) the kernel _should_ be aware of where the partition starts
> and tell you how far you'd have to shift the start of your LVM2 PV data
> area to get it perfectly aligned relative to the underlying physical
> block size. Check for example:
> # cat /sys/block/sda/sda1/alignment_offset
>
> But if your device is using 512b physical_sector_size you'll just have a
> 0 for alignment_offset. Check physical_block_size with:
> # cat /sys/block/sda/queue/physical_block_size
0 alignment, physical block size 512.
> Also verify that your SSD device is naturally aligned (aka
> alignment_offset=0); I'd wager it is naturally aligned:
> # cat /sys/block/sda/alignment_offset
Kernel thinks so, and based on performance tests it appears so.
> All said, even if you have an older kernel, to manually get what you
> want (shift start to account for DOS partition at 63rd sector, align PV
> pe_start on a 512K boundary), please try:
> # pvcreate --dataalignmentoffset 512b --dataalignment 512K ...
Won't that just add one sector to the start, placing it at sector 1025?
How does an alignment offset of 1 sector account for the partition
starting on sector 63?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] Data alignment
2010-03-19 21:27 ` Phillip Susi
@ 2010-03-19 22:21 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-03-19 23:11 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-03-25 12:54 ` [linux-lvm] Called while suspended Fredrik Skog
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Mike Snitzer @ 2010-03-19 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LVM general discussion and development
On Fri, Mar 19 2010 at 5:27pm -0400,
Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On 3/19/2010 3:25 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > Any reason why you'd like to use DOS partitioning (first primary
> > partition starting at 63rd sector)?
>
> Convention. I am looking into using GPT instead though.
>
> > Anyway, if you have a recent kernel (e.g. 2.6.33) you'll be in good
> > shape regardless. If you create a partition on the device (using DOS
> > partitions) the kernel _should_ be aware of where the partition starts
> > and tell you how far you'd have to shift the start of your LVM2 PV data
> > area to get it perfectly aligned relative to the underlying physical
> > block size. Check for example:
> > # cat /sys/block/sda/sda1/alignment_offset
> >
> > But if your device is using 512b physical_sector_size you'll just have a
> > 0 for alignment_offset. Check physical_block_size with:
> > # cat /sys/block/sda/queue/physical_block_size
>
> 0 alignment, physical block size 512.
>
> > Also verify that your SSD device is naturally aligned (aka
> > alignment_offset=0); I'd wager it is naturally aligned:
> > # cat /sys/block/sda/alignment_offset
>
> Kernel thinks so, and based on performance tests it appears so.
>
> > All said, even if you have an older kernel, to manually get what you
> > want (shift start to account for DOS partition at 63rd sector, align PV
> > pe_start on a 512K boundary), please try:
> > # pvcreate --dataalignmentoffset 512b --dataalignment 512K ...
>
> Won't that just add one sector to the start, placing it at sector 1025?
> How does an alignment offset of 1 sector account for the partition
> starting on sector 63?
The --dataalignmentoffset acts as padding. I was focused on getting you
to a power of 2 start (sector 64). Then from there --dataalignment
governs the start boundary for the PV data area.
So you're right, 64*512b + 512K isn't a multiple of 512K :)
This will get you what you want:
# pvcreate --dataalignmentoffset 512b --dataalignment 480K /dev/sda1
# pvs --units s -o+pe_start /dev/sda1
PV VG Fmt Attr PSize PFree 1st PE
/dev/sda1 lvm2 a- 20971457S 20971457S 961S
961*512b + 63*512b = 512K
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] Data alignment
2010-03-19 22:21 ` Mike Snitzer
@ 2010-03-19 23:11 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-03-25 12:54 ` [linux-lvm] Called while suspended Fredrik Skog
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Mike Snitzer @ 2010-03-19 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LVM general discussion and development
On Fri, Mar 19 2010 at 6:21pm -0400,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19 2010 at 5:27pm -0400,
> Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3/19/2010 3:25 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > Any reason why you'd like to use DOS partitioning (first primary
> > > partition starting at 63rd sector)?
> >
> > Convention. I am looking into using GPT instead though.
> >
> > > Anyway, if you have a recent kernel (e.g. 2.6.33) you'll be in good
> > > shape regardless. If you create a partition on the device (using DOS
> > > partitions) the kernel _should_ be aware of where the partition starts
> > > and tell you how far you'd have to shift the start of your LVM2 PV data
> > > area to get it perfectly aligned relative to the underlying physical
> > > block size. Check for example:
> > > # cat /sys/block/sda/sda1/alignment_offset
> > >
> > > But if your device is using 512b physical_sector_size you'll just have a
> > > 0 for alignment_offset. Check physical_block_size with:
> > > # cat /sys/block/sda/queue/physical_block_size
> >
> > 0 alignment, physical block size 512.
> >
> > > Also verify that your SSD device is naturally aligned (aka
> > > alignment_offset=0); I'd wager it is naturally aligned:
> > > # cat /sys/block/sda/alignment_offset
> >
> > Kernel thinks so, and based on performance tests it appears so.
> >
> > > All said, even if you have an older kernel, to manually get what you
> > > want (shift start to account for DOS partition at 63rd sector, align PV
> > > pe_start on a 512K boundary), please try:
> > > # pvcreate --dataalignmentoffset 512b --dataalignment 512K ...
> >
> > Won't that just add one sector to the start, placing it at sector 1025?
> > How does an alignment offset of 1 sector account for the partition
> > starting on sector 63?
>
> The --dataalignmentoffset acts as padding. I was focused on getting you
> to a power of 2 start (sector 64). Then from there --dataalignment
> governs the start boundary for the PV data area.
>
> So you're right, 64*512b + 512K isn't a multiple of 512K :)
>
> This will get you what you want:
> # pvcreate --dataalignmentoffset 512b --dataalignment 480K /dev/sda1
Alternatively you could do (as long as sysfs has alignment_offset=0):
# pvcreate --dataalignment 480.5K /dev/sda1
or
# pvcreate --dataalignment 961S /dev/sda1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [linux-lvm] Called while suspended
2010-03-19 22:21 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-03-19 23:11 ` Mike Snitzer
@ 2010-03-25 12:54 ` Fredrik Skog
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Fredrik Skog @ 2010-03-25 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LVM general discussion and development
Hi all,
I'm in the progress of switching a WD15EADS-00P8B0 disk to a Samsung F2
1.5TB drive because of all the reouble associated with the WD drives
regarding 4kb block, system freeze and poor performance.
I unmounted the VG and began doing a pvmove.
At first it went well but after 30-40% done it began complaining big time.
**** snip****
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb2) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb3) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb4) called while suspended
/dev/sdc1: Moved: 40.8%
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sdc1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda2) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda3) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda4) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sdb1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sdd1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sde) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb2) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb3) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb4) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sdc1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sdc1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda2) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda3) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda4) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sdb1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sdb1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sdd1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sde) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb2) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb3) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb4) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sdc1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda2) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda3) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda4) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sdb1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sdd1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sde) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb2) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb3) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hdb4) called while suspended
/dev/sdc1: Moved: 40.9%
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/sdc1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda1) called while suspended
WARNING: dev_open(/dev/hda2) called while suspended
**** snip***
What is happening here and should i be worried the data will be lost? I'm
not very good at LVM so I'm very worried right now.
Thanks for any input on this
/Fredrik Skog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] Data alignment
2010-03-19 18:13 [linux-lvm] Data alignment Phillip Susi
2010-03-19 18:36 ` Eugene Vilensky
2010-03-19 19:25 ` Mike Snitzer
@ 2010-03-20 23:02 ` Stuart D. Gathman
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Stuart D. Gathman @ 2010-03-20 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LVM general discussion and development
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Phillip Susi wrote:
> I have been trying to get my logical volume to be aligned to a 512 KB
> boundary on my SSD so it lines up with the flash erase block. I thought
> I could do this with pvcreate --dataalign 1024, but this caused the data
> to be aligned to a 1024 sector boundary within the partition, which
> itself starts on sector 63. I then thought the --dataalignoffsest
> switch would help, but specifying 63 there caused the data to be moved
> to sector 1087. I tried giving it -63, but was told that a negative
> number is not allowed. Why not? How can I get the data to start on
> sector 1024-63 of the partition so it ends up on pysical sector 1024 of
> the disk?
You can have "negative" offsets. Just subtract from the modulus. In your
case that would be 1024-63. I.e. --dataalignoffset 961
If the PV is not removeable, you can skip the partition table and use the
entire device for the PV - leaving 63 more sectors for metadata.
If the PV is removeable, remember you need vgchange -ay vgname after
attaching, and vgchange -an vgname before removing. (I would suggest
leaving the partition table if removeable so that other systems will
recognize the partition label.)
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart@bmsi.com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-03-25 12:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-03-19 18:13 [linux-lvm] Data alignment Phillip Susi
2010-03-19 18:36 ` Eugene Vilensky
2010-03-19 18:54 ` Phillip Susi
2010-03-19 19:54 ` Ray Morris
2010-03-19 21:20 ` Phillip Susi
2010-03-20 7:32 ` Luca Berra
2010-03-19 19:25 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-03-19 21:27 ` Phillip Susi
2010-03-19 22:21 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-03-19 23:11 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-03-25 12:54 ` [linux-lvm] Called while suspended Fredrik Skog
2010-03-20 23:02 ` [linux-lvm] Data alignment Stuart D. Gathman
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox