- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - Linux
- >
- LVM versus FDISK
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
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
тАО01-09-2010 06:33 AM
тАО01-09-2010 06:33 AM
Can somebody help me compare LVM with FDISK ?
I am using RHEL5 and I would be creating mount points or partitions to hold Oracle Databases and Oracle applications.
Please give me advantage/disadvantage, strengh/weakness of FDISK and LVM.
Regards,
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-09-2010 10:02 AM
тАО01-09-2010 10:02 AM
Re: LVM versus FDISK
use LVM.
mikap
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-09-2010 01:58 PM
тАО01-09-2010 01:58 PM
SolutionIn a 32-bit Linux OS, LVM can handle 16 TB; but if you use a 64-bit version of Linux (as you usually should with modern hardware), the limit is 8 Exabytes, i.e. effectively unlimited for most purposes.
Unless you create a custom boot loader, FDISK partitioning is still required on x86 system disk. As far as I know, there is no bootloader yet that could boot from a LVM-only disk.
LVM allows a Logical Volume to span multiple physical disks/RAID sets. If you run out of space on your current disk, just add a new disk to the system, use it to extend the volume group that needs more space, and add the necessary space to your logical volume. If you need to move your data to new disks and remove the old ones, you can use pvmove or LVM-level mirroring to migrate the data to the new disks. All this can be done while filesystems are mounted and applications are running.
With FDISK, you can extend an existing partition only if there is free space on the disk immediately after the partition. So extending any partitions other than the last one on the disk will require moving partitions around, which cannot be done while the partition is mounted.
FDISK-created Linux partitions are identifiable to other operating systems as "there is already a partition of some unknown type". If you use pvcreate to initialize the entire disk for LVM ("pvcreate /dev/sda"), other operating systems may not recognize that the disk is already in use.
This may be an issue with SAN storage, when there is a possibility that your LUNs may be accidentally presented to another system if the SAN admin makes a mistake. In such an environment, it may be useful to create a simple FDISK partition that covers the whole LUN, and then use it with LVM ("pvcreate /dev/sda1"). This way the admin of the other system can easily notice that the LUN is already in use and ask the SAN admin to double-check.
In short, I would always use LVM on data disks unless there is a specific reason *not* to do it.
MK
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-11-2010 06:07 AM
тАО01-11-2010 06:07 AM
Re: LVM versus FDISK
grub2 has LVM support, but I didn't tested it yet
Unix operates with beer.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-11-2010 06:10 AM
тАО01-11-2010 06:10 AM
Re: LVM versus FDISK
Unix operates with beer.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-11-2010 06:38 AM
тАО01-11-2010 06:38 AM
Re: LVM versus FDISK
Even to use lvm, you sometimes need to use fdisk first.
In general, I use lvm for everything possible. If I add a new disk, I will use fdisk to prepare it and mark the disk as 8E a Linux partition. This is useful in telling contractors and temporary systems administrators, "Yo, its LVM, use lvm!!!!"
LVM should be used wherever possible, because you can resize file systems or logical volumes on the fly, without a complete reconfiguration of the system or complex dd commands.
SEP
Owner of ISN Corporation
http://isnamerica.com
http://hpuxconsulting.com
Sponsor: http://hpux.ws
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hpuxlinux
Founder http://newdatacloud.com
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-14-2010 01:58 AM
тАО01-14-2010 01:58 AM
Re: LVM versus FDISK
but before use LVM I have to create physical partition first, isn't it?
(sorry for hijacking thead)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-14-2010 04:27 AM
тАО01-14-2010 04:27 AM