Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #175374 > unrolled thread

LVM RAID vs LVM over MD

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  LVM RAID vs LVM over MD kjonca@poczta.onet.pl (Kamil Jońca) - 2016-12-03 20:10 +0100
    Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-12-03 22:50 +0100
      Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD kjonca@poczta.onet.pl (Kamil Jońca) - 2016-12-04 08:20 +0100
    Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-12-03 23:20 +0100
    Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD Roman Tsisyk <roman@tsisyk.com> - 2016-12-04 07:40 +0100
    Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-12-05 11:30 +0100
      Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 20:20 +0100
        Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2016-12-05 20:40 +0100
          Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-12-05 21:00 +0100
            Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD Roman Tsisyk <roman@tsisyk.com> - 2016-12-05 21:10 +0100
              Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-12-05 21:40 +0100
        Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-12-05 20:50 +0100
        Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD Igor Cicimov <icicimov@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 01:00 +0100
          Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-12-12 12:30 +0100
            Re: LVM RAID vs LVM over MD Igor Cicimov <icicimov@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 09:50 +0100

#175374 — LVM RAID vs LVM over MD

So far I used lvm with raid1 device as PV.

Recently I have to extend my VG
(https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00909.html)

and I read some about lvm.
If I understand correctly, LVM have builtin RAID1 functionality.
And I wonder about migrating
lvm over md --> (lvm with raid1) over physical hard drive partitions.


Any cons?

KJ

-- 
http://stopstopnop.pl/stop_stopnop.pl_o_nas.html
Wiesz, tryb tekstowy w Linuksie ma się tak do DOSu
jak F-117A do paralotni. (c) Dawid Kuroczko

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#175383

On Sat, 03 Dec 2016, Kamil Jońca wrote:
> If I understand correctly, LVM have builtin RAID1 functionality.
> And I wonder about migrating
> lvm over md --> (lvm with raid1) over physical hard drive partitions.
> 
> Any cons?

Yes, many.  Don't do it.

-- 
  Henrique Holschuh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175391

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> writes:

> On Sat, 03 Dec 2016, Kamil Jońca wrote:
>> If I understand correctly, LVM have builtin RAID1 functionality.
>> And I wonder about migrating
>> lvm over md --> (lvm with raid1) over physical hard drive partitions.
>> 
>> Any cons?
>
> Yes, many.  Don't do it.

For example?

So far found by googling:
1. it's rather new code (yes I know that is md based, but integration
... in lvm)
2. very little community (so harder to get answers for questions)
3. lack of recovery advices (or I can't find them)
4. no "mdadm --monitor" equivalent (or I can't find)

but these can be only my inexperience or "code newness" :)
KJ
-- 
http://stopstopnop.pl/stop_stopnop.pl_o_nas.html
Try to divide your time evenly to keep others happy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175385

Kamil Jońca <kjonca@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:

> So far I used lvm with raid1 device as PV.

> Recently I have to extend my VG
> (https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00909.html)

> and I read some about lvm.  If I understand correctly, LVM have
> builtin RAID1 functionality.  And I wonder about migrating lvm over md
> --> (lvm with raid1) over physical hard drive partitions.

My last information on the RAID1 code in LVM is, that it is inferior to
the one in MD.

The MD code for example is able to fix broken sectors by reading the data
from the other disk, overwriting the sector on the broken disk with the
correct data, trying to get the drive to remap the sector.

Also, the last time I checked (which was a few years ago, so take my
advise with a bit of caution) the LVM code had no feature to do a
regular scrubbing of the RAID, detecting bit-rot in advance.

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175389

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Kamil Jońca <kjonca@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
> So far I used lvm with raid1 device as PV.
>
> Recently I have to extend my VG
> (https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00909.html)
>
> and I read some about lvm.
> If I understand correctly, LVM have builtin RAID1 functionality.
> And I wonder about migrating
> lvm over md --> (lvm with raid1) over physical hard drive partitions.
>

Please ask yourself a simple question: do you know how to recover LVM RAID?
I don't. mdraid is proven technology which just works.

The truth is that all these overcomplicated stuff (lvm, pulseaudio,
systemd, etc.) is designed to increase sales of premium support from
RedHat. SCNR.

-- 
WBR,
  Roman Tsisyk <roman@tsisyk.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175413

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 07:39:37PM +0100, Kamil Jońca wrote:
> So far I used lvm with raid1 device as PV.
> 
> Recently I have to extend my VG
> (https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00909.html)
> 
> and I read some about lvm.
> If I understand correctly, LVM have builtin RAID1 functionality.
> And I wonder about migrating
> lvm over md --> (lvm with raid1) over physical hard drive partitions.
> 
> 
> Any cons?

MD is older, has had more development and is generally considered to be
more robust. I would always choose to do RAID with MD, directly on the
disks, and put LVM on top of the MD virtual block devices.

-- 
Jonathan Dowland
Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175426

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

I'd like to make sure I'm taking away the right thing from this
conversation.
It seems we have high-level recommendations _not_ to use LVM RAID1.
Not just over MD, simply don't use it at all. Do I get that right?

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 07:39:37PM +0100, Kamil Jońca wrote:
> > So far I used lvm with raid1 device as PV.
> >
> > Recently I have to extend my VG
> > (https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00909.html)
> >
> > and I read some about lvm.
> > If I understand correctly, LVM have builtin RAID1 functionality.
> > And I wonder about migrating
> > lvm over md --> (lvm with raid1) over physical hard drive partitions.
> >
> >
> > Any cons?
>
> MD is older, has had more development and is generally considered to be
> more robust. I would always choose to do RAID with MD, directly on the
> disks, and put LVM on top of the MD virtual block devices.
>
> --
> Jonathan Dowland
> Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175427

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:14:14PM -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> I'd like to make sure I'm taking away the right thing from this
> conversation.
> It seems we have high-level recommendations _not_ to use LVM RAID1.
> Not just over MD, simply don't use it at all. Do I get that right?
> 

Yes.

If you want RAID1, use mdadm (and use RAID10 with 2 devices).

If you want LVM, use LVM.

If you want LVM on top of RAID, use LVM on top of mdadm, but consider
whether you might actually want ZFS instead.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175431

Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:

> If you want LVM on top of RAID, use LVM on top of mdadm, but consider
> whether you might actually want ZFS instead.

Side note: With ZFS you don't want to use MD (or any other RAID) below
ZFS but instead put all disk directly into a (or multiple) VDEV.

S°

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175434

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> wrote:
> Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:
>
>> If you want LVM on top of RAID, use LVM on top of mdadm, but consider
>> whether you might actually want ZFS instead.
>
> Side note: With ZFS you don't want to use MD (or any other RAID) below
> ZFS but instead put all disk directly into a (or multiple) VDEV.
>

I wonder do you want your data back? :)

-- 
WBR,
  Roman Tsisyk <roman@tsisyk.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175436

Roman Tsisyk <roman@tsisyk.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> wrote:
>> Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:

>>> If you want LVM on top of RAID, use LVM on top of mdadm, but
>>> consider whether you might actually want ZFS instead.

>> Side note: With ZFS you don't want to use MD (or any other RAID)
>> below ZFS but instead put all disk directly into a (or multiple)
>> VDEV.

> I wonder do you want your data back? :)

Why?

S°

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175429

Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to make sure I'm taking away the right thing from this
> conversation.
> It seems we have high-level recommendations _not_ to use LVM RAID1.

Yes.

> Not just over MD, simply don't use it at all. Do I get that right?

Yes. With MD lower in the stack, you don't need LVM-RAID1.

S°

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175445

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 6 Dec 2016 5:14 am, "Nicholas Geovanis" <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd like to make sure I'm taking away the right thing from this
conversation.
> It seems we have high-level recommendations _not_ to use LVM RAID1.
> Not just over MD, simply don't use it at all. Do I get that right?
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 07:39:37PM +0100, Kamil Jońca wrote:
>> > So far I used lvm with raid1 device as PV.
>> >
>> > Recently I have to extend my VG
>> > (https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00909.html)
>> >
>> > and I read some about lvm.
>> > If I understand correctly, LVM have builtin RAID1 functionality.
>> > And I wonder about migrating
>> > lvm over md --> (lvm with raid1) over physical hard drive partitions.
>> >
>> >
>> > Any cons?
>>
>> MD is older, has had more development and is generally considered to be
>> more robust. I would always choose to do RAID with MD, directly on the
>> disks, and put LVM on top of the MD virtual block devices.
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Dowland
>> Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
>
>
It depends. If you are using cloud services with remote shared storage like
AWS EBS it does not make sense using LVM on top of RAID. To me it is just
adding complexity to already complex SAN storage. You also have no idea
what the block devices presented to the VM are coming from it might be a
file coming over iSCSI. I've been using LVM raid on AWS EBS for years
without any issues. My advice is test and match them all before you make
your decision each ones user case and experience is different.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175636

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:53:30AM +1100, Igor Cicimov wrote:
> It depends. If you are using cloud services with remote shared storage like
> AWS EBS it does not make sense using LVM on top of RAID. To me it is just
> adding complexity to already complex SAN storage. You also have no idea
> what the block devices presented to the VM are coming from it might be a
> file coming over iSCSI. I've been using LVM raid on AWS EBS for years
> without any issues. My advice is test and match them all before you make
> your decision each ones user case and experience is different.

I should have prefixed my answer with "If you want RAID...". I don't
personally use RAID anywhere, myself, at the moment.

In the situation you describe then you are doing logical volume management
elsewhere and you would indeed not need LVM. You should also address redundancy
at that other layer so you wouldn't need (local) RAID either, either LVM or MD
based, IMHO.

You don't explain why you chose to use LVM RAID over mdadm, but as I said, I
wouldn't use either in your case.

-- 
Jonathan Dowland
Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175656

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 12 Dec 2016 10:21 pm, "Jonathan Dowland" <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:53:30AM +1100, Igor Cicimov wrote:
> It depends. If you are using cloud services with remote shared storage
like
> AWS EBS it does not make sense using LVM on top of RAID. To me it is just
> adding complexity to already complex SAN storage. You also have no idea
> what the block devices presented to the VM are coming from it might be a
> file coming over iSCSI. I've been using LVM raid on AWS EBS for years
> without any issues. My advice is test and match them all before you make
> your decision each ones user case and experience is different.

I should have prefixed my answer with "If you want RAID...". I don't
personally use RAID anywhere, myself, at the moment.

In the situation you describe then you are doing logical volume management
elsewhere and you would indeed not need LVM. You should also address
redundancy
at that other layer so you wouldn't need (local) RAID either, either LVM or
MD
based, IMHO.

You don't explain why you chose to use LVM RAID over mdadm, but as I said, I
wouldn't use either in your case.

--
Jonathan Dowland
Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.


It is not all about redundancy but performance too. In my tests the
lvm-raid performed better than plain lvm.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web