[linux-lvm] Best Practices deploying LVM

Abraham Pérez jockah at gmail.com
Fri Oct 30 08:52:43 UTC 2009

Thanks for the instant answers!

Well... I'll try to explain myself better. I'm working in a client who have
a lot of servers running under VMware. This client have a lot of problems
with the storage, because they never have enough space so when they have to
allocate disk in servers, they add small virtual hard disks with, for
example, 5 or 10GB.

Then for the OS installation, we follow the basic schema based on disk
partitions (/dev/sda1 pointing to / with ext3, /dev/sda2 pointing to /home
and so on) and for the applications data, we use VG and LV pointing to /opt

The client have some applications who need a lot of mountpoints, so my
colleague adds 1-3 LV per VG (aproximated) and I only create only one VG and
inside it, different LVs.  With this infrastructure, we have to discard
different kinds of hard disk because they're exactly the same... and we have
that doubt: what schema is better and why, discarding concept things like a
volume group was designed to be a group, because we're looking for good
reasons based in performance of future actions, it's not important... or am
I mistaken???

I don't know if I explained myself very well, so thanks all anyway!

Abraham Pérez

2009/10/30 <malahal at us.ibm.com>

> Ray Morris [support at bettercgi.com] wrote:
> >     I don't know about a whitepaper, but I can address
> > your example.
> >
> > > he makes one volume group for each logical volume (more or less)
> >
> >     If each one has one volume, that's not exactly a volume
> > GROUP, is it?  If groups and volumes are basically synomous,
> > he gives up all the benfits of groups.  In fact, he gives
> > up most of the benefits of logical volumes, since each PV
> > has to be in one group, and each VG is one LV, you're left
> > with one LV per PV - might as well just use partitions
> > directly.
> I agree, you lose some flexibility but it has some advantage compared to
> plain partitions without LVM. E.g. he can make a file system larger than
> any disk with multiple disks in the above LVM (one LV per VG)
> configuration.  There are other advantages. I am not sure the reason for
> making only one LV per VG though!
> Thanks, Malahal.
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/attachments/20091030/70b1f06b/attachment.htm>

More information about the linux-lvm mailing list