- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - Linux
- >
- Re: software raid 0 or LVM
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-02-2010 02:39 PM
тАО11-02-2010 02:39 PM
Re: software raid 0 or LVM
> i didnt understand this. i normally create LVMs with default options.
LVM is capable of doing a RAID 0, aka. striped volume, he meant this. But as your LUNs are already striped between the physical storage disks, I don't think that you would profit anything by creating a striped LV. So, stay with the default values! ;)
To read about LVM striping, here is a doc:
http://docs.hp.com/en/B2355-90672/ch08.html
Unix operates with beer.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-02-2010 07:47 PM
тАО11-02-2010 07:47 PM
Re: software raid 0 or LVM
No need to use striping here as the luns are of different size. And LVM is the best solution for you here as the Redundancy are met at the storage level.
You can create a volume group with these two luns and create a logical volume which is pretty simple.
Software raid levels are available but that don't have the flexibility that lvm can give.
Regards
Jayakrishnan G Naik
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-03-2010 01:22 AM
тАО11-03-2010 01:22 AM
Re: software raid 0 or LVM
/dev/sda1 55G 41G 6.7G 86% /ora1
/dev/sda2 48G 46G 1.5G 97% /ora2
/dev/sdb1 101G 78G 16G 83% /ora3
after a few hours the mountpoint on sda1 started misbehaving and since the storage admin didnt bother to create zoning in eva, it affected all the servers.
we restarted the server in single user mode and removed the mountpoints from /etc/fstab
and restarted the server. now the mountpoints from SAN are not mounted.
is there any relation to me creating an LVM out of sda2 and sdb1 and the mountpoint on sda1 being affected.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-03-2010 04:33 AM
тАО11-03-2010 04:33 AM
Re: software raid 0 or LVM
>after a few hours the mountpoint on sda1 started misbehaving
What do you mean by 'misbehaving'? How could a _mountpoint_ misbehave???
Regards,
Viktor
Unix operates with beer.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-03-2010 04:52 AM
тАО11-03-2010 04:52 AM
Re: software raid 0 or LVM
df -h was showing the mount point, but i could not list the contents. it simply disappeared.
have a look at the status of the server in the image attached. something to do with this server and the storage but i dont know what.
just before this happened i had created that lvm which i was talking about and our dba was cloning the prod db on the lvm.
i want to know whether creating of an lvm of the two partitions i mentioned, caused this issue?
/dev/sda1 55G 41G 6.7G 86% /ora1
/dev/sda2 48G 46G 1.5G 97% /ora2
/dev/sdb1 101G 78G 16G 83% /ora3
sda1 and 2 are part of one block device and sdb1 is another.
sda2 and sdb1 are PVs of my LVM. would such a configuration have caused a direct impact on the sda1?
did that result in the server throwing too many I/Os on the SAN (with no zoning) affecting all servers?
i know my explanation will appear vague. but has anyone faced a similar situation.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-03-2010 05:17 AM
тАО11-03-2010 05:17 AM
Re: software raid 0 or LVM
Do you know what you are doing?
/dev/sda1 55G 41G 6.7G 86% /ora1
/dev/sda2 48G 46G 1.5G 97% /ora2
/dev/sdb1 101G 78G 16G 83% /ora3
You claim the above to be LVM - it is not sir unless it is just lost in translation.
If the above is indeed true that you have mounted filesystems on individiual disks - then question will come out and mine will be -- are the above disks SAN (eva4400) disks!? Coz if they are -- then you are NOT using multipathing!!
I suggest you take a very deep breath and let us go over your problem again -- if you still want our help.
Shukran.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-03-2010 08:27 AM
тАО11-03-2010 08:27 AM
Re: software raid 0 or LVM
/dev/sda1 55G 41G 6.7G 86% /ora1
/dev/sda2 48G 46G 1.5G 97% /ora2
/dev/sdb1 101G 78G 16G 83% /ora3
above was my partition before i did the LVM config.
i did the LVM config after umounting /dev/sda2 and /dev/sdb1
i am not sure about the multipathing thing as i didnt do the setup.
my question was
sda1 and sda2 are part of one block device and sdb1 is another.
sda2 and sdb1 are PVs of my LVM. would such a configuration have caused a direct impact on the sda1?
i was unable to access sda1 at all and the state of the server was as shown the JPEG in my previous post.
i have now restarted the server after disabling the SAN moutpoints from /etc/fstab
and now i have manually jus mounted /dev/sda1. all data is intact.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-03-2010 08:28 AM
тАО11-03-2010 08:28 AM
Re: software raid 0 or LVM
how do say multipathing is not working correctly?
infact an HP consultant who came yesterday told us the people who did the configuration (HP) have not done the cabling correctly!!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-03-2010 08:43 AM
тАО11-03-2010 08:43 AM
Re: software raid 0 or LVM
hmmmm... HP should have excellent people there.
I guess get your act together sir. Chase whoever manages the EVA4400 to make sure it is "zoned" and / or config'd correctly if you think or others think it is zoned incorrectly.
/dev/sdNN are not the correctr names of EVA multipathed devices!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-03-2010 10:31 AM
тАО11-03-2010 10:31 AM
Re: software raid 0 or LVM
I'm with Alzhy: I don't see the point for setting another level of striping on the top of the RAID5-out-of-the-box. The throughput was already maximalized with RAID5, why overcomplicate it with another level of striping?
If you go and read the paper on SAME for big arrays that are already striped you'll see that there is immense value in using Distributed striping on hardware Raid arrays, as I've indicated. Like I said before - feel free to ignore.
As far as something being "already maximized" because it's raid 5. Well, you've just missed the big truck leaving town. There's so many other things to consider - balance I/O, balancing cards, balancing controllers, balancing san ports, NOT using RAID 5 in certain areas. Just saying that something is "maximized" because it's R5 is just leaving so much other stuff out. Which is exactly what his question was, about the other things out there.
No one should ever consider:
"Already Maximized" = "R5"
That statement says a lot more about what's not being considered in setup than what has been.