- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- PVG vs. VG
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
Forums
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
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
тАО05-15-2002 08:38 PM
тАО05-15-2002 08:38 PM
PVG vs. VG
Can anybody explain the difference between using physical volume groups and not using them. Why it is important to use it to have "true" mirroring? If I create volume group with vgcreate, then vgextend with one more disk (on different controller) and when creating logical volume specify to keep mirror copies on physical volumes (check box in lvcreate SAM page) that should do everything since it supposed to ensure mirror copy will go to separate physical device. What advantage or extra features PVG does provide?
Thanks,
/Marius
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-15-2002 08:45 PM
тАО05-15-2002 08:45 PM
Re: PVG vs. VG
Imagine an SC10 rack with 2 controllers. Some of the disks are on 1 controller, some on the other. For high availability you would want a logical volume to be created on a disk that is on one controller and mirrored on a disk that is on another controller. However, the concept of "controller" is unknown in LVM. Hence PVG's. You create one for the disks on one controller, another for the disks on the other controller, make your logical volumes PVG-strict ... and you are set.
Hope this explains,
Tom
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-15-2002 08:55 PM
тАО05-15-2002 08:55 PM
Re: PVG vs. VG
Clean-mirror
============
You would setup the VG by putting A and B in PVG1 & C and D in PVG2 when you create your VG the first time using "-g" option to define the PVG name. Now when you create you LVs and you want to mirror say 1 copy you would want the mirrored copy to reside in a separate PVG instead so that you know your mirrored copies are always in PVG2 for example. This would also help in disaster recovery situation. The "lvcreate" command has "-s g" option that tells it to do a PVG-strict mirror. Going forward extending your existing LVs would just be a straight forward "lvextend" since it was already defined as PVG-strict.
Dirty-mirror
============
You setup the VG in a normal manner. In the creation of your LVs, if you simply say mirror 1 copy and let LVM figure out where to put it's mirrored copy then you may end up in a siuation whereby your mirrored copy can reside anywhere in A,B,C,D even on the disk where the primary copy sits ! Having said that you can actually tell lvextend to put your mirror-copy to a specific disk but then you would have to keep track of the PEs, etc, etc. If PVG is setup this is done automatically.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-15-2002 10:11 PM
тАО05-15-2002 10:11 PM
Re: PVG vs. VG
in vgextend you actually define specifically which disk to include. Hence, you can put in say two disks which are on different controllers. There is full control on that in vgextend. I kind of agree with K.S. that in case of two same size disks only PVG does not really give any advantage. But if there are larger groups it is probably easier to manage.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-15-2002 10:37 PM
тАО05-15-2002 10:37 PM
Re: PVG vs. VG
I agree with S.K. as well, but take the follwing configuration (to explain my explanation) :
root/sv00138#more /etc/lvmpvg
VG /dev/vgdisk138
PVG original
/dev/dsk/c0t1d0
/dev/dsk/c0t0d0
/dev/dsk/c0t2d0
PVG mirror
/dev/dsk/c6t0d0
/dev/dsk/c6t1d0
/dev/dsk/c6t2d0
Now, when I create a filesystem, can create this on a disk in PVG "original". If I lvcreate the logical volume PVG-strict, the mirror will automatically be on PVG "mirror", thus ensuring the mirror is on a different controller.
Regards,
Tom
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-16-2002 12:07 AM
тАО05-16-2002 12:07 AM
Re: PVG vs. VG
Here's two good reasons to use PVGs:
1. OK, so *you* know where each disk is, and what channels to mirror down, so with careful planning and diligent use of the LVM commands you can ensure I/O seperation without using LVM.
But what about some other admin/operator in your company? Maybe a Solaris admin who isn't familiar with HPUX, maybe the poor sap they hire when you leave for that dream consulting job in Barbados!
Anyway... an inexperienced sysadmin might just go and use SAM to extend a logical volume in your non-PVG volume group... this only has to happen a few times to result in chaos (believe me I've seen the result of this situation!)
Using PVGs would have prevented this to some extent (OK so if they created an entirely new LV they wouldn't be bound by PVG-strict), and they're very simple to use, so why not?
2. If you are working in a MCSG environment there are certain resource monitors (EMS HA monitors for disk - the pv_summary metric)which are dependent on you using PVGs... without them the system cannot successfully work out whether you still have access to your data from a particular node.
HTH
Duncan
I am an HPE Employee
