On Thursday 24 March 2011 15:38:02 J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Thu, March 24, 2011 12:30 pm, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > On Thursday 24 March 2011 08:49:52 J. Roeleveld wrote: > >> On Wed, March 23, 2011 5:43 pm, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > >> > md raid devices can do barriers. Don't know about lvm. But lvm is > >> > such > >> > >> a > >> > >> > can > >> > of worms I am surprised people still recommend it. > >> > >> What is wrong with LVM? > >> I've been using it successfully without any issues for years now. > >> It does what it says on the box. > > > > it is another layer that can go wrong. Why take the risk? There > > are enough cases of breakage after upgrades - and besides snapshots... > > is > > the > > amount of additional code running really worth it? Especially with bind > > mounting? > > There are always things that can go wrong and I agree, adding additional > layers can increase the risk. > However, the benefits of easily and quickly changing the size of > partitions and creating snapshots for the use of backups are a big enough > benefit to off-set the risk. > > Bind-mounting is ok, if you use a single filesystem for everything. I have > partitions that are filled with thousands of small files and partitions > filled with files are are, on average, at 1GB in size. > I haven't found a filesystem yet that successfully handles both of these > with identical performance. > When I first tested performance I found that a simple "ls" in a partition > would appear to just hang. This caused performance issues with my > IMAP-server. > I switched to a filesystem that better handles large amounts of small > files and performance increased significantly. > > The way I do backups is that I stop the services, create snapshots and > then restart the services.
and I don't stop much - I just cp everything on the backup disk ;) /home is way to full? no problem, just dump all that file crap on some other partition and bind mount the directories. No change from user POV (that is me). And since /home is on / and that a 64gb ssd resizing is not a topic. That 1tb raid5 I dump all data on? Again - why resize? I have all in one place and bind what I need elsewhere.
