Logical Volume max-size?

Is the 255.99 Gigabyte limit for a logical volume still in place, or does that go away/get bigger with the later (post 0.91) versions?

Share and Enjoy. 

Seems like that's more a function of how one of the other parameters, not LVM itself. Isn't there a block size parameter you can set, or something like that? Search the archives here, I remember seeing that a couple of weeks back.

-- Mitch

Yes, it is still in the current CVS, if I am not wrong.

But, you can go away with by defining PE size to a bigger number than default 4MB. By defining PE size to 16M, it gives
16M * 65534 = 1,048,544M, which is about 1TB.

take a look at -s switch in vgcreate.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Petro" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 3:37 PM
Subject: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size?

Cool. I need about 300 gig.

Those 3ware cards rock. Lots of disk, fast and cheap.

Share and Enjoy. 

Yup, love mine. Too bad they've stopped supporting them. :(

Ben Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick ([email protected])
http://defiance.dyndns.org/ / http://radio.scenespot.org/
"Right now Moltar is heating my skull up to a scorching 450 degrees.
It's like getting a scalp massage... from Lucifer." -- Space Ghost

Really?

I've got 11, and we just bought them (6x series) about 7 months ago.

Last time I asked a question they were real helpful. (About 3 weeks ago).

Share and Enjoy. 

BR> Yup, love mine. Too bad they've stopped supporting them. :(

This is untrue. They never intended to stop supporting them, and recently they have reversed their decision to stop selling them.

- J<

While the cards may be cool, their raid 5 implementation sucks like hell.
slow like a slug, and if it should ever become dirty the system is unuseable for about 6 hours. (with 6x80gb Maxtor ATA drives in RAID5). And I don't have enough additional storage to make a backup and switch over to linux softraid :-(
Ok, my backup solution should have enought space, but hey, I've raid i don't need backup ;-)
(Don't beat me to hard, I've a backup solution for my important data)

Goetz.

GB> While the cards may be cool, their raid 5 implementation sucks GB> like hell. slow like a slug, and if it should ever become dirty GB> the system is unuseable for about 6 hours.

Don't run the 6000-series cards in RAID5 mode; they weren't designed for it. Use software RAID instead; it works just fine and the card is still cost-effective as an 8-channel IDE controller. What you say is blatantly untrue for the 7000-series cards; the 7850 should be even faster.

Why the proliferation of 3ware misinformation on this list lately?

- J<

I figured this out the hard way. I asked some 3ware person whether I could use a 6800 as a RAID5 controller and was told, that it would work fine.

This is true.

As an owner of two 6800 this does not help me at all :-(, but hey they got better, what is cool.

It was only me who disappointed by the 6xxx series RAID5 performance

Goetz.

Did you try going back and complaining that it did not work as advertised?

I ask because we have had success with their 6200 series as a mirrored
drive controller, and have found 3Ware to be reasonably responsive. We have not had the opportunity to try their RAID5 offerings yet, and your comments certainly do not inspire confidence. I am wondering if it is an issue that can be corrected by, e.g., a firmware update, or if it is just a design flaw in the cards.

Ben Scott <[email protected]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or  |
| organization.  All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

Hi Benjamin!

We use this here with Linux and RAID5. In fact, we first installed the newest firmware, which is necessary AFAIK with RAID5. And you shouldn't expect too much speed, RAID5-writing is not very fast with this IDE RAID. As the IDE-array is only the backup of our SCSI-fileserver, we are not to worried about write-speed here (we use rsync, so only changes are written to the array - and in case that we have to restore, the read-performance is good).

CU, Lars.

BS> I ask because we have had success with their 6200 series as a
BS> mirrored drive controller, and have found 3Ware to be reasonably BS> responsive. We have not had the opportunity to try their RAID5 BS> offerings yet, and your comments certainly do not inspire BS> confidence.

Why not? The card works as advertised. It supports RAID5. It does not do RAID5 very fast. I wouldn't call it slow, but there are controllers that do RAID5 faster, and software RAID5 will outperform the card as well. Since they publish performance numbers, all you have to do is see if it's fast enough for you.

BS> I am wondering if it is an issue that can be corrected by, e.g., a BS> firmware update, or if it is just a design flaw in the cards.

No design flaw; they were simply not originally designed to do RAID5. People asked for it, so they implemented it. The card just doesn't have enough CPU horsepower to do everything at disk speed. A 6810 is still a great card for striping or mirroring and is quite cost effective simply as a JBOD controller.

So BFD. If you want blisteringly fast RAID5, buy a 7810 or a 7850. You'll appreciate the 64-bit PCI anyway.

Anyway, this is all off topic and if this list didn't have a Reply-To:
set I wouldn't be replying here. We do discuss this kind of thing on [email protected]. It's run by Majordomo; send mail to [email protected] to join.

- J<

Ok. We don't use 5, we're using either 0 or 1 depending on the machine.

We have lots of volitile DBs, and backups for a db that change massively over an hour is sort of pointless.

Share and Enjoy.