Too late for LVM on my working system? - Redhat

This is a discussion on Too late for LVM on my working system? - Redhat ; On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:07:01 -0700, onepeanutwhistle typed this message: > It's really that I was wondering about the possibility of destroying a > great amount of effort I've put in my own system. And yes, stability is > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: Too late for LVM on my working system?

  1. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:07:01 -0700, onepeanutwhistle typed this message:

    > It's really that I was wondering about the possibility of destroying a
    > great amount of effort I've put in my own system. And yes, stability is
    > highly prized. The idea of trying one little used partition has won
    > my interest.
    >
    > I have a much older system that I actually could try with Fedora 7 or
    > Fedora 8 and let LVM have its way with partitions I hadn't put so much
    > work into. We also could wait another month or so for RHEL 5.2 to come
    > out of beta testing and see if that changes my mind. At least
    > system-config-lvm gives a bit of a gui. I suppose it would be nice if
    > an LVM wizard was in the works. Perhaps one day, GParted will be able
    > to work with LVM too.
    >
    > Thank you kindly folks!
    > Onepeanutwhistle


    LVM was a problem in FC4 but LVM has matured with better tools. I
    suppose there's cautions regarding RAID drives and very large files.
    Seems like extra overhead, but working the bugs out on a small test
    system is the right approach, in case you crash an LVM volume or
    something.

    I don't use LVM because it interfered with Ext2ifs tool to seamlessly
    access Linux files from Windows. Don't think Ext2ifs has caught up with
    LVM yet.

  2. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:07:01 -0700, onepeanutwhistle typed this message:

    > It's really that I was wondering about the possibility of destroying a
    > great amount of effort I've put in my own system. And yes, stability is
    > highly prized. The idea of trying one little used partition has won
    > my interest.
    >
    > I have a much older system that I actually could try with Fedora 7 or
    > Fedora 8 and let LVM have its way with partitions I hadn't put so much
    > work into. We also could wait another month or so for RHEL 5.2 to come
    > out of beta testing and see if that changes my mind. At least
    > system-config-lvm gives a bit of a gui. I suppose it would be nice if
    > an LVM wizard was in the works. Perhaps one day, GParted will be able
    > to work with LVM too.
    >
    > Thank you kindly folks!
    > Onepeanutwhistle


    LVM was a problem in FC4 but LVM has matured with better tools. I
    suppose there's cautions regarding RAID drives and very large files.
    Seems like extra overhead, but working the bugs out on a small test
    system is the right approach, in case you crash an LVM volume or
    something.

    I don't use LVM because it interfered with Ext2ifs tool to seamlessly
    access Linux files from Windows. Don't think Ext2ifs has caught up with
    LVM yet.

  3. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    onepeanutwhistle@aol.com wrote:
    > It's really that I was wondering about the possibility of destroying a
    > great amount of effort I've put in my own system. And yes, stability
    > is highly prized. The idea of trying one little used partition has
    > won
    > my interest.


    If you are not really familiar with LVM's and how they work, the chances
    of destroying data I would put at 100%. Stability is not an issue, but
    typically you want to set it up on a new/fresh system.

    >
    > I have a much older system that I actually could try with Fedora 7
    > or Fedora 8 and let LVM have its way with partitions I hadn't put
    > so much work into. We also could wait another month or so for
    > RHEL 5.2 to come out of beta testing and see if that changes my
    > mind. At least system-config-lvm gives a bit of a gui. I suppose
    > it would be nice if an LVM wizard was in the works. Perhaps one
    > day, GParted will be able to work with LVM too.


    That is the way to do it, get familiar with it and most of all, become
    comfortable with it. Again, I wouldn't touch a production type system
    for experimenting with LVM's... you would destroy data. I am a little
    familiar with system-config-lvm, but never use it. The CLI provides
    more data, faster, and keeps one layer of possible bugs out... The GUIs
    for that kind of thing are typically the last thing tested... Sort of
    like dump and restore - dump is tested through the waazoo, restore, not
    so much.

    JR.

    >
    > Thank you kindly folks!
    > Onepeanutwhistle



    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

  4. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    onepeanutwhistle@aol.com wrote:
    > It's really that I was wondering about the possibility of destroying a
    > great amount of effort I've put in my own system. And yes, stability
    > is highly prized. The idea of trying one little used partition has
    > won
    > my interest.


    If you are not really familiar with LVM's and how they work, the chances
    of destroying data I would put at 100%. Stability is not an issue, but
    typically you want to set it up on a new/fresh system.

    >
    > I have a much older system that I actually could try with Fedora 7
    > or Fedora 8 and let LVM have its way with partitions I hadn't put
    > so much work into. We also could wait another month or so for
    > RHEL 5.2 to come out of beta testing and see if that changes my
    > mind. At least system-config-lvm gives a bit of a gui. I suppose
    > it would be nice if an LVM wizard was in the works. Perhaps one
    > day, GParted will be able to work with LVM too.


    That is the way to do it, get familiar with it and most of all, become
    comfortable with it. Again, I wouldn't touch a production type system
    for experimenting with LVM's... you would destroy data. I am a little
    familiar with system-config-lvm, but never use it. The CLI provides
    more data, faster, and keeps one layer of possible bugs out... The GUIs
    for that kind of thing are typically the last thing tested... Sort of
    like dump and restore - dump is tested through the waazoo, restore, not
    so much.

    JR.

    >
    > Thank you kindly folks!
    > Onepeanutwhistle



    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

  5. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    onepeanutwhistle@aol.com wrote:
    > It's really that I was wondering about the possibility of destroying a
    > great amount of effort I've put in my own system. And yes, stability
    > is highly prized. The idea of trying one little used partition has
    > won
    > my interest.


    If you are not really familiar with LVM's and how they work, the chances
    of destroying data I would put at 100%. Stability is not an issue, but
    typically you want to set it up on a new/fresh system.

    >
    > I have a much older system that I actually could try with Fedora 7
    > or Fedora 8 and let LVM have its way with partitions I hadn't put
    > so much work into. We also could wait another month or so for
    > RHEL 5.2 to come out of beta testing and see if that changes my
    > mind. At least system-config-lvm gives a bit of a gui. I suppose
    > it would be nice if an LVM wizard was in the works. Perhaps one
    > day, GParted will be able to work with LVM too.


    That is the way to do it, get familiar with it and most of all, become
    comfortable with it. Again, I wouldn't touch a production type system
    for experimenting with LVM's... you would destroy data. I am a little
    familiar with system-config-lvm, but never use it. The CLI provides
    more data, faster, and keeps one layer of possible bugs out... The GUIs
    for that kind of thing are typically the last thing tested... Sort of
    like dump and restore - dump is tested through the waazoo, restore, not
    so much.

    JR.

    >
    > Thank you kindly folks!
    > Onepeanutwhistle



    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

  6. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    In article MaxFreedom@sws5.ornl.gov says...
    > My mileage is definitely better than yours. I use LVM on dozens of
    > RHEL 3/4/5 and Fedora 5/6/7/8 systems, and have never had a single
    > problem with it.


    Here's an incident that I recently had to endure. Awhile ago I rebuilt
    one of my linux servers to run RHEL5 on a new physical drive. I took
    the physical drive that was running FC4 and just made it a slave to
    serve files with its OS intact in case I would ever need it. That drive
    was partitioned with lvm. Since I was just "trying out" RHEL5 for a few
    months (I couldn't get any updates) I went to install FC8 on an
    unformatted partition on that drive that I had set aside for this very
    purpose. Something happened and the install went FUBAR. I had to fsck
    that drive manually to get everything back from the RHEL5 partition.
    For some reason, the slave drive, a drive that shouldn't have had
    anything to do with the install, wasn't recognized. Panic ensued since
    I had a lot of unbacked up data on there (I know it's my own damn fault
    for that but still).

    I then removed that FC4 drive, put it in a new system to boot on its own
    and still -- nothing. I then did a live boot from the FC8 CD and found
    that for some reason the lvm mapping changed between FC4 and FC8. The
    old mapping was /dev/mapper/VolGroup00/LogVol00. The new mapping was
    /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00. All I had to do was change /etc/fstab
    but it did put a big scare in me. I thought the installer deleted the
    entire logical partition.

    I really don't see any advantages to logical partitions over regular
    partitions or understand how logical partitions are more stable than
    regular partitions. I'm sure someone saw a value in them or they never
    would have been developed. I've always used the KISS approach when
    using computers. Unfortunately, that FC4 physical disk partitioned with
    lvm will be that way for the foreseeable future so I still have to keep
    up to date with it.


  7. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    In article MaxFreedom@sws5.ornl.gov says...
    > My mileage is definitely better than yours. I use LVM on dozens of
    > RHEL 3/4/5 and Fedora 5/6/7/8 systems, and have never had a single
    > problem with it.


    Here's an incident that I recently had to endure. Awhile ago I rebuilt
    one of my linux servers to run RHEL5 on a new physical drive. I took
    the physical drive that was running FC4 and just made it a slave to
    serve files with its OS intact in case I would ever need it. That drive
    was partitioned with lvm. Since I was just "trying out" RHEL5 for a few
    months (I couldn't get any updates) I went to install FC8 on an
    unformatted partition on that drive that I had set aside for this very
    purpose. Something happened and the install went FUBAR. I had to fsck
    that drive manually to get everything back from the RHEL5 partition.
    For some reason, the slave drive, a drive that shouldn't have had
    anything to do with the install, wasn't recognized. Panic ensued since
    I had a lot of unbacked up data on there (I know it's my own damn fault
    for that but still).

    I then removed that FC4 drive, put it in a new system to boot on its own
    and still -- nothing. I then did a live boot from the FC8 CD and found
    that for some reason the lvm mapping changed between FC4 and FC8. The
    old mapping was /dev/mapper/VolGroup00/LogVol00. The new mapping was
    /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00. All I had to do was change /etc/fstab
    but it did put a big scare in me. I thought the installer deleted the
    entire logical partition.

    I really don't see any advantages to logical partitions over regular
    partitions or understand how logical partitions are more stable than
    regular partitions. I'm sure someone saw a value in them or they never
    would have been developed. I've always used the KISS approach when
    using computers. Unfortunately, that FC4 physical disk partitioned with
    lvm will be that way for the foreseeable future so I still have to keep
    up to date with it.


  8. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    In article MaxFreedom@sws5.ornl.gov says...
    > My mileage is definitely better than yours. I use LVM on dozens of
    > RHEL 3/4/5 and Fedora 5/6/7/8 systems, and have never had a single
    > problem with it.


    Here's an incident that I recently had to endure. Awhile ago I rebuilt
    one of my linux servers to run RHEL5 on a new physical drive. I took
    the physical drive that was running FC4 and just made it a slave to
    serve files with its OS intact in case I would ever need it. That drive
    was partitioned with lvm. Since I was just "trying out" RHEL5 for a few
    months (I couldn't get any updates) I went to install FC8 on an
    unformatted partition on that drive that I had set aside for this very
    purpose. Something happened and the install went FUBAR. I had to fsck
    that drive manually to get everything back from the RHEL5 partition.
    For some reason, the slave drive, a drive that shouldn't have had
    anything to do with the install, wasn't recognized. Panic ensued since
    I had a lot of unbacked up data on there (I know it's my own damn fault
    for that but still).

    I then removed that FC4 drive, put it in a new system to boot on its own
    and still -- nothing. I then did a live boot from the FC8 CD and found
    that for some reason the lvm mapping changed between FC4 and FC8. The
    old mapping was /dev/mapper/VolGroup00/LogVol00. The new mapping was
    /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00. All I had to do was change /etc/fstab
    but it did put a big scare in me. I thought the installer deleted the
    entire logical partition.

    I really don't see any advantages to logical partitions over regular
    partitions or understand how logical partitions are more stable than
    regular partitions. I'm sure someone saw a value in them or they never
    would have been developed. I've always used the KISS approach when
    using computers. Unfortunately, that FC4 physical disk partitioned with
    lvm will be that way for the foreseeable future so I still have to keep
    up to date with it.


  9. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    Mark Anderson wrote:

    > I really don't see any advantages to logical partitions over regular
    > partitions or understand how logical partitions are more stable than
    > regular partitions. I'm sure someone saw a value in them or they never
    > would have been developed. I've always used the KISS approach when
    > using computers. Unfortunately, that FC4 physical disk partitioned with
    > lvm will be that way for the foreseeable future so I still have to keep
    > up to date with it.
    >


    LVM offers many advantages over standard partitioning. Every run out of
    space on a slice yet have a 500 GB disk sitting next to it ? LVM would
    fix that in a jiffy. You can add storage to your fs's on the fly. In
    enterprise storage when you are dealing with large LUNs, you can move
    data off a physical disk and replace it with a larger one - not losing
    any space. You can do snapshot volumes... the list is huge. In large
    environments, LVM's are almost exclusively used. AIX for instance, that
    is all it does. Every disk gets pulled in for use. That is standard
    partitioning on AIX.... (which is not as good as Linux's LVM IMHO).

    JR.

    JR.

    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

  10. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    Mark Anderson wrote:

    > I really don't see any advantages to logical partitions over regular
    > partitions or understand how logical partitions are more stable than
    > regular partitions. I'm sure someone saw a value in them or they never
    > would have been developed. I've always used the KISS approach when
    > using computers. Unfortunately, that FC4 physical disk partitioned with
    > lvm will be that way for the foreseeable future so I still have to keep
    > up to date with it.
    >


    LVM offers many advantages over standard partitioning. Every run out of
    space on a slice yet have a 500 GB disk sitting next to it ? LVM would
    fix that in a jiffy. You can add storage to your fs's on the fly. In
    enterprise storage when you are dealing with large LUNs, you can move
    data off a physical disk and replace it with a larger one - not losing
    any space. You can do snapshot volumes... the list is huge. In large
    environments, LVM's are almost exclusively used. AIX for instance, that
    is all it does. Every disk gets pulled in for use. That is standard
    partitioning on AIX.... (which is not as good as Linux's LVM IMHO).

    JR.

    JR.

    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

  11. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    Mark Anderson wrote:

    > I really don't see any advantages to logical partitions over regular
    > partitions or understand how logical partitions are more stable than
    > regular partitions. I'm sure someone saw a value in them or they never
    > would have been developed. I've always used the KISS approach when
    > using computers. Unfortunately, that FC4 physical disk partitioned with
    > lvm will be that way for the foreseeable future so I still have to keep
    > up to date with it.
    >


    LVM offers many advantages over standard partitioning. Every run out of
    space on a slice yet have a 500 GB disk sitting next to it ? LVM would
    fix that in a jiffy. You can add storage to your fs's on the fly. In
    enterprise storage when you are dealing with large LUNs, you can move
    data off a physical disk and replace it with a larger one - not losing
    any space. You can do snapshot volumes... the list is huge. In large
    environments, LVM's are almost exclusively used. AIX for instance, that
    is all it does. Every disk gets pulled in for use. That is standard
    partitioning on AIX.... (which is not as good as Linux's LVM IMHO).

    JR.

    JR.

    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2