[clug] Ideas for future talks (and who wants to talk at next month's meeting?)

[Bob Edwards]

We had a dual Xeon Sun box (with an Intel Mobo) running 2.6.5, LVM2 and
software RAID, as an NFS server. Gave us no end of trouble under load
(kept kernel panicing). Soon rebuilt it without LVM and with a 2.4.26
kernel. Much more stable! These days it is running a 2.6.8 kernel and
software RAID with some issues, but nowhere near as bad as when we were
using LVM.

Just my A$0.02 worth.

Cheers,

Bob Edwards.

Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 10:13:03AM +1000, David Price wrote:
> 
>>Andrew Pollock wrote:
>>
>>>Care to share your horror stories? I'm a big fan of LVM, and would tend to
>>>advocate it anywhere (I have plans to give a talk about LVM when I get a
>>>chance to make some slides). I'm interested to hear about any badness...
>>
>>The system is a file server with about 400 users' home directories on 
>>it.  It's running a 2.4 kernel with LVM 1.  It's possible the newer 
>>version of LVM with the 2.6 kernel might fix the problem, but at this 
>>stage I think the plan is to move away from LVM altogether, since we 
>>don't really need it.  Now on to the problem...
>>
> 
> 
> Ah, say no more...
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>As I mentioned above, it's possible that LVM 2 fixes this, since I get 
>>the impression that the way it works is fairly different.
>>
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is a complete rewrite, with backwards compatibility to the old
> tools. It would be interesting to see if a similiar problem existed with
> LVM2.
> 
> regards
> 
> Andrew