xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LVM on Linux

To: Florin Andrei <florin@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: LVM on Linux
From: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:37:32 +0200
>received: 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, Basel
References: <85063BBE668FD411944400D0B744267A643419@AUSMAIL> <20010716225418.G14564@vestdata.no> <995318493.12677.14.camel@stantz.corp.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Florin Andrei schrieb:
> 
> On 16 Jul 2001 22:54:18 +0200, Ragnar Kjørstad wrote:
> >
> > 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 devices
> > * snapshotting.
> >
> > Basicly handling this is software adds a lot of flexibility.
> 
> 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

I have never seen a true hardware RAID. I mean every RAID I saw
was having its own CPU (be it i960 or any newer generation of
microprocessor or microcontroller from different vendors) and
small operating system (firmware). So in fact it's always
software but not running on you main CPU. However
mainstream CPU's became powerful and very cheap so it's not
a bad idea to let this CPU work for your RAID funtionality. In
fact software RAID on modern CPU's has exiting performance.

> (but, yeah, soft is easier to play with).

Another good reason to use the really soft version.

> 
> --
> Florin Andrei



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>