reiserfs or ext3 on lvm? - Suse

This is a discussion on reiserfs or ext3 on lvm? - Suse ; I'm looking to build a new home server using SATA RAID and lvm. I've used lvm a lot and it's always worked a treat with reiserfs, as reiserfs can resize a partition on 'the fly' when I've suddenly discovered that ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: reiserfs or ext3 on lvm?

  1. reiserfs or ext3 on lvm?

    I'm looking to build a new home server using SATA RAID and lvm.

    I've used lvm a lot and it's always worked a treat with reiserfs, as
    reiserfs can resize a partition on 'the fly' when I've suddenly discovered
    that I need to allocate more disk space using lvm (and yes I've always had
    a good backup first).

    I see from a version of opensuse 10.2 I've installed on a vm that the
    default fs is now ext3 rather than reiserfs.

    If I go with the default ext3 can I resize partitions on the fly or is that
    only possible with reiserfs?

    Alan

    --
    email =~ s/nospam/fudokai/

  2. Re: reiserfs or ext3 on lvm?

    ajp wrote:
    > I'm looking to build a new home server using SATA RAID and lvm.
    >
    > I've used lvm a lot and it's always worked a treat with reiserfs, as
    > reiserfs can resize a partition on 'the fly' when I've suddenly discovered
    > that I need to allocate more disk space using lvm (and yes I've always had
    > a good backup first).
    >
    > I see from a version of opensuse 10.2 I've installed on a vm that the
    > default fs is now ext3 rather than reiserfs.
    >
    > If I go with the default ext3 can I resize partitions on the fly or is that
    > only possible with reiserfs?
    >
    > Alan
    >

    Alan,


    You use the wrong word. A partition is a part of the disk layout.

    The filesystem can be extended online, reduced is not supported (atleast
    for older versions). Read the man or info page to be sure, I do not use
    OpenSuSe.


    Best regards,


    Jan Gerrit Kootstra

  3. Re: reiserfs or ext3 on lvm?

    Jan Gerrit Kootstra wrote:

    > ajp wrote:
    >> I'm looking to build a new home server using SATA RAID and lvm.
    >>
    >> I've used lvm a lot and it's always worked a treat with reiserfs, as
    >> reiserfs can resize a partition on 'the fly' when I've suddenly
    >> discovered that I need to allocate more disk space using lvm (and yes
    >> I've always had a good backup first).
    >>
    >> I see from a version of opensuse 10.2 I've installed on a vm that the
    >> default fs is now ext3 rather than reiserfs.
    >>
    >> If I go with the default ext3 can I resize partitions on the fly or is
    >> that only possible with reiserfs?
    >>
    >> Alan
    >>

    > Alan,
    >
    >
    > You use the wrong word. A partition is a part of the disk layout.
    >
    > The filesystem can be extended online, reduced is not supported (atleast
    > for older versions). Read the man or info page to be sure, I do not use
    > OpenSuSe.
    >
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    >
    > Jan Gerrit Kootstra


    Ok so it should be increase the size of a logical volume rather than
    partition but the question is still the same - can I resize an ext3 file
    system without loss of data?

    The man page for resize2fs says it will resize both ext2 and ext3 systems
    provided they are unmounted but doesn't say whether data could be
    corrupted.
    Has anyone tried resize2fs with ext3 fs and is it safe?

    Alan
    --
    email =~ s/nospam/fudokai/

  4. Re: reiserfs or ext3 on lvm?

    ajp wrote:
    > Ok so it should be increase the size of a logical volume rather than
    > partition but the question is still the same - can I resize an ext3 file
    > system without loss of data?
    >
    > The man page for resize2fs says it will resize both ext2 and ext3 systems
    > provided they are unmounted but doesn't say whether data could be
    > corrupted.
    > Has anyone tried resize2fs with ext3 fs and is it safe?


    There is one way to be sure: try it. ;-)

    houghi
    --
    The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that
    grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak.
    -- Robert A. Heinlein in "The Man Who Sold the Moon"

  5. Re: reiserfs or ext3 on lvm?

    houghi wrote:

    > ajp wrote:
    >> Ok so it should be increase the size of a logical volume rather than
    >> partition but the question is still the same - can I resize an ext3 file
    >> system without loss of data?
    >>
    >> The man page for resize2fs says it will resize both ext2 and ext3 systems
    >> provided they are unmounted but doesn't say whether data could be
    >> corrupted.
    >> Has anyone tried resize2fs with ext3 fs and is it safe?

    >
    > There is one way to be sure: try it. ;-)
    >
    > houghi


    A quick test using the VM seems to be Ok - have you (or anyone else) hit any
    problems with this?

    alan
    --
    email =~ s/nospam/fudokai/

  6. Re: reiserfs or ext3 on lvm?

    ajp wrote:
    > houghi wrote:
    >
    >> ajp wrote:
    >>> Ok so it should be increase the size of a logical volume rather than
    >>> partition but the question is still the same - can I resize an ext3 file
    >>> system without loss of data?
    >>>
    >>> The man page for resize2fs says it will resize both ext2 and ext3 systems
    >>> provided they are unmounted but doesn't say whether data could be
    >>> corrupted.
    >>> Has anyone tried resize2fs with ext3 fs and is it safe?

    >> There is one way to be sure: try it. ;-)
    >>
    >> houghi

    >
    > A quick test using the VM seems to be Ok - have you (or anyone else) hit any
    > problems with this?


    It's safe, especially if umounted. Online resizer for ext2/3 is flakey,
    there are too many circumstances that will force you to fsck the
    filesystem before proceeding, and even then it seems to have limitations
    with regards to when an online resize can happen and the ammount
    of resizing that can occur... and in my experience it takes too
    long to execute.

    I agree with houghi though... give it a try and see if it fits your
    needs. We looked at switching to ext3 with our large scale sans...
    we ended up sticking with reiserfs.

  7. Re: reiserfs or ext3 on lvm?

    ajp wrote:
    > A quick test using the VM seems to be Ok - have you (or anyone else) hit any
    > problems with this?


    I have had problems with LVM in that I was unable to recover from a
    chrashed system. Hard reboot and fsck did not work. I now do not use LVM
    anymore. The disadvantage of having one partition with many points of
    failure does not make it worthwhile for me to run LVM.

    houghi
    --
    The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that
    grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak.
    -- Robert A. Heinlein in "The Man Who Sold the Moon"

  8. Re: reiserfs or ext3 on lvm?

    houghi wrote:
    > ajp wrote:
    >> A quick test using the VM seems to be Ok - have you (or anyone else) hit any
    >> problems with this?

    >
    > I have had problems with LVM in that I was unable to recover from a
    > chrashed system. Hard reboot and fsck did not work. I now do not use LVM
    > anymore. The disadvantage of having one partition with many points of
    > failure does not make it worthwhile for me to run LVM.
    >
    > houghi


    Like with everything, it's only as good as the underlying
    infrastructure. We have filesystems that date back to SUSE 8.2 days...
    still going strong. Most are 800GB or larger and are used by over
    250 users as their home directories. We will be migrating this year,
    just to get it off of a SCSI DAS and onto a fibre SAN.

    I've never lost anything due to an LVM corruption. But YMMV.


  9. Re: reiserfs or ext3 on lvm?

    Chris Cox wrote:

    > houghi wrote:
    >> ajp wrote:
    >>> A quick test using the VM seems to be Ok - have you (or anyone else) hit
    >>> any problems with this?

    >>
    >> I have had problems with LVM in that I was unable to recover from a
    >> chrashed system. Hard reboot and fsck did not work. I now do not use LVM
    >> anymore. The disadvantage of having one partition with many points of
    >> failure does not make it worthwhile for me to run LVM.
    >>
    >> houghi

    >
    > Like with everything, it's only as good as the underlying
    > infrastructure. We have filesystems that date back to SUSE 8.2 days...
    > still going strong. Most are 800GB or larger and are used by over
    > 250 users as their home directories. We will be migrating this year,
    > just to get it off of a SCSI DAS and onto a fibre SAN.
    >
    > I've never lost anything due to an LVM corruption. But YMMV.


    I first started with LVM on HP-UX (version 9.x IIRC). I'd assumed it was a
    purely propriety system but when I first played with Linux (SuSE - possibly
    6.3) I was astonished to find pvcreate etc. in Linux. Now I wonder if the
    HP and Linux versions come from the same source especially as the CLI is
    the same.

    We ran the old HP900 box at my last company for years (and years and
    years ...) with LVM and nary a problem - unlike the Windoze servers. I
    think the only times the HP box was rebooted was when it was moved to a new
    server room and again when the server room was reorganised.

    Alan

    --
    email =~ s/nospam/fudokai/

  10. Re: reiserfs or ext3 on lvm?

    ajp wrote:
    ....
    >
    > I first started with LVM on HP-UX (version 9.x IIRC). I'd assumed it was a
    > purely propriety system but when I first played with Linux (SuSE - possibly
    > 6.3) I was astonished to find pvcreate etc. in Linux. Now I wonder if the
    > HP and Linux versions come from the same source especially as the CLI is
    > the same.


    It was patterned after that implementation... but it's not the same
    code base. SUSE obviously was the first big distro to implement LVM,
    and did a lot of the funding until Red Hat stepped in and bought
    Sistina. The good news is that Red Hat finally recognized the
    benefit of LVM (though they make it the default, which isn't what
    I would've done). Still it's nice to see Red Hat playing catch up.


+ Reply to Thread