[clug] Storage

[George at Clug]

    Does any one have any useful comments to make on David's question?
"Which is better, resizing a partition or using LVM?"

I don't know the answer, and I guess that would vary depending on the
configuration of the hardware/systems being used.

>From my limited experience LVM is a rock solid, industry tested, and
proven solution that is used in both Unix and Linux. I have never had
the opportunity to run data performance related tests on any such
infrastructure. 

However from my perspective, I am usually working with very low spec
hardware, trying to milk the most out of it, and whether true or false
(likely false until proven otherwise), I have the assumption that any
abstraction from physical hardware will cause decreased performance,
and potential for instability, and thus I try to stay as close as
possible to bare metal. But is this a false belief ?

Could fragmentation be an issue if you use too many LVM extents, and
does resizing a partition extend contiguous space or can it also
create fragmentation?

Personally I usually mount data from separate disks (virtual or
physical) so that I can replace a disk with a larger disk when
necessary, and so I have not bothered with LVM or resizing of
partitions.

George



At Sunday, 07-05-2017 on 08:08 David C via linux wrote:


Hello all,
We have many servers at work laid out with a normally partitioned OS
drive
supporting filesystems and one or more partitioned drives supporting
everything else on a large logical volume.
So if you're building a virtual server, why would you embrace the risk
and
annoyance of resizing a partition table, compared with allocating the
raw
disk (with offset) as an LVM pv?
If allocated without a partition table, extending filesystems is quick
and
nearly risk free.

By the way, I am aware that just adding another disk is also quite
easy,
and so this is more a question of opinion or good practice, rather
than a
witch hunt.

Thanks,
David
-- 
linux mailing list
linux at lists.samba.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

 

At Sunday, 07-05-2017 on 08:08 David C via linux wrote:


Hello all,
We have many servers at work laid out with a normally partitioned OS
drive
supporting filesystems and one or more partitioned drives supporting
everything else on a large logical volume.
So if you're building a virtual server, why would you embrace the risk
and
annoyance of resizing a partition table, compared with allocating the
raw
disk (with offset) as an LVM pv?
If allocated without a partition table, extending filesystems is quick
and
nearly risk free.

By the way, I am aware that just adding another disk is also quite
easy,
and so this is more a question of opinion or good practice, rather
than a
witch hunt.

Thanks,
David
-- 
linux mailing list
linux at lists.samba.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux