Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LVM\s+on\s+Linux\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LVM\s+on\s+Linux\s*$/: 33 ]

Total 33 documents matching your query.

1. LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:09:14 -0700; For anyone considering using LVM on Linux. You might want to take a second to look at the following "short" article. It casts a questionalble light on the current state of the LVM code. == 0 Jun - 5; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00682.html (10,401 bytes)
2. RE: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:25:44 -0700; The article mentioned is from kernel-traffic. The thread continued on the linux-lvm list (though currently it has mutated into a interesting discussion of write caches on hard drives). Here's the mos; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00684.html (11,914 bytes)
3. RE: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xxx; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:46:57 -0500; It would be much nicer to know, what frame the 64-bit is that he's talking about here. Also, If you have an enterprise storage system like EMC or Hitatchi, you're probably running hardware level mirr; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00688.html (12,504 bytes)
4. Re: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xxx; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:52:00 -0700; I should have specified in my original post: The comments contained the the snippet of thread on this topic are not my own. The piece was taken directly from another conversation, between other indiv; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00690.html (11,547 bytes)
5. Re: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:54:18 +0200; Even for highend RAID's there are lots of reasons to use LVM/EVMS: * load balancing across multiple scsi-channels (not implemented yet) * Dynamic partitioning * Volumes spanning multiple physical dev; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00691.html (9,699 bytes)
6. Re: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: 16 Jul 2001 14:21:33 -0700; But how about performance? Aren't these things supposed to be handled by the hardware? It's the same thing as for soft vs hard RAID. Hard should be faster (but, yeah, soft is easier to play with). --; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00695.html (8,566 bytes)
7. Re: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:03:59 +0200; There is a performance penalty, but if you're using LVM just for partitioning it's very small. (I believe ca 4% if you're using large extents). I'd assume the penalty for doing striping is approxemat; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00700.html (9,861 bytes)
8. RE: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:22:28 -0500; Here's something that I'm trying to get at, regardless if you go with EVMS or LVM, either one will offer you all of the things which you listed. (Not all are finished, on both parties, but they are; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00702.html (9,086 bytes)
9. RE: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:14:43 -0500; I'd like to answer a couple of these things. This is almost always at the driver level on the host. Since LVM is a sort of Driver, much like MD/RD, then it would be as though MD/RD had that kind of a; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00705.html (9,359 bytes)
10. Re: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:37:32 +0200; from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0AB57306; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:47:05 +0200 (CEST) Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx Organization: Sauter AG,; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00715.html (9,842 bytes)
11. RE: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:38:59 -0500; That is referred to as hardware RAID because most RAID card devices use an ASIC programmed to do ONLY that. Think of it, if you like, as a RAID appliance. :) -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00742.html (9,867 bytes)
12. LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:09:14 -0700; For anyone considering using LVM on Linux. You might want to take a second to look at the following "short" article. It casts a questionalble light on the current state of the LVM code. == 0 Jun - 5; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01973.html (10,401 bytes)
13. RE: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:25:44 -0700; The article mentioned is from kernel-traffic. The thread continued on the linux-lvm list (though currently it has mutated into a interesting discussion of write caches on hard drives). Here's the mos; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01975.html (11,914 bytes)
14. RE: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:46:57 -0500; It would be much nicer to know, what frame the 64-bit is that he's talking about here. Also, If you have an enterprise storage system like EMC or Hitatchi, you're probably running hardware level mirr; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01979.html (12,504 bytes)
15. Re: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:52:00 -0700; I should have specified in my original post: The comments contained the the snippet of thread on this topic are not my own. The piece was taken directly from another conversation, between other indiv; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01981.html (11,547 bytes)
16. Re: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:54:18 +0200; Even for highend RAID's there are lots of reasons to use LVM/EVMS: * load balancing across multiple scsi-channels (not implemented yet) * Dynamic partitioning * Volumes spanning multiple physical dev; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01982.html (9,699 bytes)
17. Re: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: 16 Jul 2001 14:21:33 -0700; But how about performance? Aren't these things supposed to be handled by the hardware? It's the same thing as for soft vs hard RAID. Hard should be faster (but, yeah, soft is easier to play with). --; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01986.html (8,566 bytes)
18. Re: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:03:59 +0200; There is a performance penalty, but if you're using LVM just for partitioning it's very small. (I believe ca 4% if you're using large extents). I'd assume the penalty for doing striping is approxemat; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01991.html (9,861 bytes)
19. RE: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:22:28 -0500; Here's something that I'm trying to get at, regardless if you go with EVMS or LVM, either one will offer you all of the things which you listed. (Not all are finished, on both parties, but they are; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01993.html (9,086 bytes)
20. RE: LVM on Linux (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:14:43 -0500; I'd like to answer a couple of these things. This is almost always at the driver level on the host. Since LVM is a sort of Driver, much like MD/RD, then it would be as though MD/RD had that kind of a; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01996.html (9,359 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]