Linked by John Finigan on Mon 21st Apr 2008 19:00 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 311131
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by agrouf
by segedunum on Fri 25th Apr 2008 02:28
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by agrouf"
LVM, DM, and MD are crap when you are working with large filesystems. On one 64-bit Debian Lenny box, I can't create multiple LVM volume if their total size goes over 1.2 TB. On a separate 64-bit Debian Etch box, I can create a single LVM volume that spans 7 TB, but creating a second one of 10 GB (yes GB) on the same box fails. On a third 64-bit Debian Etch box, I had to manually stitch together a bunch....
Your personal anecdotes on experiences with Linux storage management tools in a narrow set of circumstances count for very little. "Oh, this happened to me with LVM once!" I've created an absolute ton of multi gigabyte and terabyte logical volumes, and if what you described was the case generally then I think we'd have all heard about it. The very fact that you've mentioned 'Debian Lenny' sees your credibility get shot through the head right there.
Just because LVM does this or doesn't do that on a certain distribution, that doesn't mean that that is the way it works generally for everyone else. I daresay ZFS will have a few bugs and quirks once it gets more widely used, and if Sun actually gets a clue you might have an outside chance of finding the problem on their web site ;-).
I'd much rather see something useful in the server room. LVM, MD, and DM have a long way to go before that happens.
Well, they're used on a very, very, very wide basis these days, and I don't see people breaking down the doors and throwing out all their Linux boxes just to run ZFS. Just isn't happening.
I'm very tempted to turn our VM boxes into nothing more than NFS servers so that I can run FreeBSD or OpenSolaris on them and get some useful volume/fs management tools.
You'll do a cost/benefit analysis of that, like everyone else, and find out that it just isn't worth it. I don't know what you'd gain running FreeBSD, and the less-then-perfect userland in Solaris alone is enough to turn people off.




Member since:
2005-07-11
The biggest issue with all Linux tools are that they are not designed to work together, in that they don't harmonise the commandline options (or even the command names).
For instance, why is that you can't just use:
"mount -t <fs> -o <options> <device> <mount point>
to mount any filesystem? Some can be, if they have a mount.fs command installed, while others require running fsmnt commands.
Or, why can't one just use:
"mkfs -t <fs> <device>"
to format partitions with the filesystem of choice? Some have mkfs.fs command that work that way. Others don't and require you to run the separate command.
Or, why can't one use:
"fsck -t <fs> <device>
to check filesystems for errors.
Or, why can't one use:
"ifconfig <interface> <options>
to configure wired NICs, wireless NICs, vlans, bridges, and tunnels?
There are too many separate projects doing each little piece of the pie in their own corner of the world with very little regard for what the others are doing. This wouldn't be so bad ... if the layers between them were clearly defined, and the interfaces clearly defined, and didn't change at the drop of a hat.
You're going to have to qualify that one, because LVM and MD software RAID were stable and being used before ZFS was even a glint in Bonwick's eye. Indeed, ZFS has yet to be proven in the same way. "
LVM, DM, and MD are crap when you are working with large filesystems. On one 64-bit Debian Lenny box, I can't create multiple LVM volume if their total size goes over 1.2 TB. On a separate 64-bit Debian Etch box, I can create a single LVM volume that spans 7 TB, but creating a second one of 10 GB (yes GB) on the same box fails. On a third 64-bit Debian Etch box, I had to manually stitch together a bunch of 1.9 TB physical volumes into one large 10 TB volume group, but I can only partition it into smaller logical volumes if the total size of the volumes is less than 2 TB.
So much for trying to simplify things by using volume management for storage of backups and as storage for virtual machines.
You'll probably see one come about when it becomes a requirement to do storage management on running desktop systems and other appliances. "
I'd much rather see something useful in the server room. LVM, MD, and DM have a long way to go before that happens.
We're using hardware RAID, working with multiple TB storage arrays, and struggling with volume management, as the current crop of Linux tools really, really, really suck. I'm very tempted to turn our VM boxes into nothing more than NFS servers so that I can run FreeBSD or OpenSolaris on them and get some useful volume/fs management tools.