[mythtv-users] Better think twice before choosing an FS especially for LVM

[Dan Littlejohn]

On 9/15/05, Tom Lichti <tom at redpepperracing.com> wrote:
> Brandon Beattie wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 12:26:08PM -0700, Poul Petersen wrote:
> >
> >>      BTW, the software raid tools for linux actually support
> >> growing, even in a RAID5 configuration. Now before you get
> >>
> >
> > Right, but that wasn't my point. :)  Raid5, with or without LVM still
> > can't shrink an XFS filesystem, and my point is that shrinking, in my
> > new experiences is something more useful than my strong dislike for
> > reiserfs's poor performance compared to XFS and JFS on large files.
> >
> >
> > Raid5 is really another issue related with availibility, not with
> > the functionality I was trying to warn people about.
> >
> 
> But you wouldn't need to shrink the filesystem to replace the disk with
> RAID5, if you use enough disks (minimum 3). Of course there is a trade
> off in terms of available data space, but if what you put on there is
> important to you, it's worth it. At least for me it was. Performance is
> increased as well, since you have more spindles to read and write from
> simultaneously.
> 
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> 
Another vote for RAID5 with XFS.  I stayed away from LVM so I could
run XFS without worrying.  Used an old 600Mhz box and a hardware RAID
controller, and mounted it with nfs.  Can replace the controller if it
fails, replace a drive that fails, and expand the array on line. 
Maybe I am deluding myself because I do not understand all the details
of LVM and the potential for XFS to corrupt, but I have been more than
happy with this setup and it is in heavy usage.

When they get on-line expansion working for adding devices (as I
learned they are working on above) for software RAID, I think that
would be my preference (most recoverable and cheapest).