At Wed, 24 Jun 2015 04:10:35 +0100 CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:42:13 -0700 > Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I wondered the same thing, especially in the context of someone who > > prefers virtual machines. LV-backed VMs have *dramatically* better > > disk performance than file-backed VMs. > > Ok, you made me curious. Just how dramatic can it be? From where I'm > sitting, a read/write to a disk takes the amount of time it takes, the > hardware has a certain physical speed, regardless of the presence of > LVM. What am I missing? > > For concreteness, let's say I have a guest machine, with a > dedicated physical partition for it, on a single drive. Or, I have the > same thing, only the dedicated partition is inside LVM. Why is there a > performance difference, and how dramatic is it? > > If you convince me, I might just change my opinion about LVM. :-) Well if you are comparing direct partitions to LVM there is no real difference. OTOH, if you have more than a few VMs (eg more than the limits imposed by the partitioning system) and/or want to create [temporary] ones 'on-the-fly', using LVM makes that trivially possible. Otherwise, you have to repartition the disk and reboot the host. This puts you 'back' in the old-school reality of a multi-boot system. And partitioning a RAID array is tricky and combersome. Resizing physical partitions is also non-trivial. Bascally, LVM gives you on-the-fly 'partitioning', without rebooting. It is just not possible (AFAIK) to always update partition tables of a running system (never if the disk is the system disk). Most partitioning tools are not really designed for dynamic re-sizing of partitions and it is a highly error-prone process. Most partitioning tools are designed for dealing with a 'virgin' disk (or a re-virgined disk) with the idea that the partitioning won't be revisited once the O/S has been installed. LVM is all about creating and managing *dynamic* 'partitions' (which is what Logical Volumes effectively are). And no, there is little advantage in using multiple PVs. To get performance gains (and/or redundency, etc.), one uses real RAID (eg kernel software RAID -- md or hardware RAID), then layers LVM on top of that. The 'other' *alternitive* is to use virtual container disks (eg image files as disks), which have horrible performance (compared to LVM or hard partitions) and are hard to backup. The *additional* feature: with LVM you can take a snapshot of the VM's disk and back it up safely. Otherwise you *have* to shutdown the VM and remount the VM's disk to back it up OR you have to install backup software (eg amanda-client or the like) on the VM and back it up over the virtual network. It some cases (many cases!) it is not possible to either shutdown the VM and/or install backup software on it (eg the VM is running a 'foreign' or otherwise imcompatible O/S). > > Oh, and just please don't tell me that the load can be spread accross > two or more harddrives, cutting the file access by a factor of two (or > more). I can do that with raid, no need for LVM. Stick to a single > harddrive scenario, please. > > Best, :-) > Marko > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services heller at deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services