LVM is a very cool thing that I feel is a bit underappreciated.
I've always built my systems like this:
two hard disks => RAID1 => LVM VG1.
nvme => LVM VG2
Because at some point I decided LVM is just like flexible partitions and didn't pay much attention to the huge amounts of other stuff in the manpages.
Turns out that's a pretty crappy way of doing things.
LVM can do RAID, can deal with moving things across devices, and has many other fancy features. So instead of the above, stick it all into the same VG without RAID on top.
You can RAID individual LVs. Some RAID1, some RAID5, some RAID0, some nothing, and pick on which disks stuff goes. You can add integrity checking which is not something MD RAID does. You can do caching. You can do writable snapshots. You can do thin provisioning. It's extremely flexible tech.
The only thing I'd recommend staying away from is thin provisioning unless it's necessary. The performance impact is significant, virt-manager for some reason doesn't see thin LVs as legitimate disks (can be worked around easily though) and thin provisioning seems to be able to develop faults of its own. I've had one old setup where one block was somehow not readable and it seems to be a thin provisioning thing -- it doesn't say the underlying disk is bad, it's something more along the lines of the metadata being broken.
To upgrade you can do things like moving LVs from one disk to another to free it up and remove it. Disks of different sizes are much less of a problem than with standard RAID, too.
creshal 4 minutes ago [-]
LVM isn't underrated, it's obsolete. ZFS in particular has none of the many, maaany problems you run into trying to make LVM work reliably in practice (no self-corrupting snapshots, e.g.).
linsomniac 21 minutes ago [-]
~20 years ago I was helping someone with their storage server for their mail server, it had 8x 10K discs in a RAID-1. It was always struggling to keep up and often couldn't keep up. Intel had just come out with their SSDs, and I had a friend with access to one that was larger in size than the array. I shipped this little laptop drive off to get installed in the storage server.
Once the SSD was on the server, I did a "pvmove" to move the data from spinning array to SSD, while the system was up and running. Over the next several hours the load on the server dropped. It was comical that these 8 hard drives could be replaced by something smaller than my wallet.
But pvmove was the other star of this show.
gopalv 11 hours ago [-]
As always the YMMV of caching is access patterns, but the more consistent cacheable pattern has been the ext4 journals for me.
They are tiny and often hit with a huge number of IOPS.
Ext4 supported external journals and moving it to a single SSD for a large number of otherwise slow SMR disks has worked great in the past.
However, when you hit a failure that SSD becomes a single root cause of data loss from several disks when losing that SSD (unlike a read cache).
Where I was working that didn't matter as I was mostly working with HDFS which both likes a JBOD layout of several disks instead of RAID (no battery backed write caches), tolerant to a single node failing completely and having a ton more metadata operations thanks to writing a single large file as many fixed-size files named blk_<something> with a lot of directories containing thousands of files.
SSDs were expensive then, but it's been a decade of getting cheaper from that.
Dylan16807 1 hours ago [-]
> However, when you hit a failure that SSD becomes a single root cause of data loss from several disks when losing that SSD (unlike a read cache).
In theory you can massively reduce this risk by keeping a copy of the journal in memory so it only corrupts if you have a disk loss and a power outage within a few seconds of each other. But I don't know if the tools available would let you do that properly.
trinsic2 10 hours ago [-]
This reminds me of the hybrid drives. When the NVM failed its was a nightmare to deal with. IMHO it's a bad idea from a stability perspective to be caching off drive to Non-volatile memory.
wtallis 8 hours ago [-]
Your last sentence does not follow from the preceding one. Hybrid drives were doomed by having truly tiny caches, making them not particularly fast (you need a lot of flash chips in parallel to get high throughput), prone to cache thrashing, and easy to wear out the NAND flash. These days, even if you try, it's hard to build a caching system that bad. There just aren't SSDs small and slow enough to have such a crippling effect. Even using a single consumer SSD as a cache for a full shelf of hard drives wouldn't be as woefully unbalanced as the SSHDs that tried to get by with only 8GB of NAND.
GauntletWizard 9 hours ago [-]
The same for ZFS; there's provisioning to make a "zil" device - ZFS Intent Log, basically the journal. ZFS is a little nicer in that this journal is explicitly disposable - If you lose your ZIL device, you lose any writes since it's horizon, but you don't lose the whole array.
The next step up is building a "metadata" device, which stores the filesystem metadata but not data. This is dangerous in the way the ext4 journal is; lose the metadata, and you lose everything.
Both are massive speedups. When doing big writes, a bunch of spinning rust can't achieve full throughput without a SSD ZIL. My 8+2 array can write nearly two gigabits, but it's abysmal (roughly the speed of a single drive) without a ZIL.
Likewise, a metadata device can make the whole filesystem feel as snappy as SSD, but it's unnecessary if you have enough cache space; ZFS prefers it, so if your metadata fits into your cache SSD, most of it will stay loaded
Szpadel 9 hours ago [-]
I just want to mention that ZIL is just to speed up sync writes, as it ends syscall when data are written to ZIL, but might be still in progress on slower storage.
ZIL is also basically write only storage, therefore sad without very significant over provisioning will die quickly (you only read from ZIL after unclean shutdown)
if you don't really case about latest version of file (risk of loosing recent chances is acceptable) you might set sync=disabled for that dataset and you can have great performance without ZIL
magicalhippo 4 hours ago [-]
Minor nitpick, your post is primarily talking about SLOG, separate intent log.
The pool always has a ZIL, but you can put it on a separate device, or decices, with SLOG[1].
There's a configuration option that amounts to putting a directory (or maybe a volume) entirely into the metadata drive.
It's been a long time since I set that up, but the home storage has spinning rust plus a raid 1 of crucial ssd (sata! But ones with a capacitor to hopefully handle writes after power loss), where the directory I care about performance for lives on the ssd subarray. Still presents as one blob of storage. Metadata on the ssd too, probably no ZIL but could be wrong about that. Made ls a lot more reasonable.
Thinking about it that system must be trundling towards expected death, it might be a decade old now.
Szpadel 10 hours ago [-]
something that people forget with raid1 is that this only protect from catastrophic disk failure.
this means your your drive need to be dead for raid to do it's protection and this is usually the case.
the problem is when starts corrupting data it reads of writes. in that case raid have no way to know that and can even corrupt data on the healthy drive. (data is read corrupted and then written to both drives)
the issue is that there are 2 copies of the data and raid have no way of telling with one is correct so it's basically flips a coin and select one of them, even if filesystem knows that content makes no sense.
that's basically biggest advantage of filesystems like zfs or btrfs that manage raid themselves, they have checksums and that know with copy is valid and are able to recover and say that one drive appears healthy but it's corrupting data so you probably want to replace it
iforgotpassword 9 hours ago [-]
Made that experience once ca. 2011. I hosted a Minecraft server ona box with raid1.
The "cool" part was that I ran a cronjob that rendered the map to a png file once and hour, and at some point a friend asked why there were holes in the map.
Back then, Minecraft stored every 16x16 chunk of the map in an individual gzipped file. When the raid1 decided to read the chunk from the bad drive, it couldn't unzip it. If that happened to the renderer, there was a hole on the map. If that happened to the game server, it would regenerate the chunk, and overwrite the old one on both drives, even the healthy one. Luckily as far a I remember that only happened on random terrain, otherwise someone would have ended up with half their house missing.
iam-TJ 8 hours ago [-]
When using LVM one can use the dm-integrity target to detect data corruption.
dinosaurdynasty 3 hours ago [-]
You can even use it without LVM, though it's still a pain to setup.
7 hours ago [-]
riedel 10 hours ago [-]
Does someone know what the technology behind the tiering on QNAP NAS Systems is? I use an SSD RAID 1 in front of an RAID 10, which seems to work great.
IMHO flexible tiering rather than caching would be very nice for many Systems as it is rather difficult to teach users to separate rather stale data from changing data. Often does not have to be perfect.
Looked at Autotier before, but the development looked pretty stale (which is not too bad per se if it is stable). Is there any experience/ recommendations with putting bcachefs also on top of networked block storage such as CEPH ? As CEPH SSD caching seems pretty deprecated by default, at work we looked at a solution to marry our HDD and SSD pool for users that do want to put too much thoughts into tiering by mount points.
magicalhippo 4 hours ago [-]
Will be interesting to play with.
I used lvm cache to put ZFS on top of local NVMe for write-back caching of iSCSI targets, as ZFS has good built-in read caching.
Worked pretty well in the limited tests I did, but it's not magic. Main reason I didn't pursue is that it felt a bit like a house of cards. Though on the positive side, one could always mount the underlying storage, ie partitions serving the iSCSI targets, as a local pool on another machine.
rsync 10 hours ago [-]
A reminder that zfs recently (past ~5 years) implemented dedicated metadata cache devices ... which allows you to cache either filesystem metadata or even small files to a blazing fast SSD mirror:
This is a quick and easy way to add thousands of iops to even something very slow like a raidz3 zpool.
As always:
"Let's repeat, and emphasize: unlike an SLOG or L2ARC which are merely inconvenient to lose, if you lose your metadata vdev (your "special" vdev) you will lose your entire zpool just as surely as if you lost one of the other full vdevs ..."
sitkack 9 hours ago [-]
I would hope ZFS has a way to mirror metadata from the pool into an ssd, so it is actually a cache but doesn't increase the probability of dataloss.
wongarsu 9 hours ago [-]
If you set up a normal L2arc (read cache device) that will cache both data and metadata. However you can configure it to only cache one of the two. Set it to metadata only and size it appropriately and you have basically a read-only metadata mirror.
If you also want to have fast writes you can get a second SSD and set up a mirrored metadata device (storing metadata on mirrored SSDs, and regular data on whatever the rest of your pool uses)
Dylan16807 55 minutes ago [-]
Last time I stapled l2arc onto a hard drive zfs it was still super slow to do things like ls large directories and the l2arc never filled more than a couple gigabytes.
Maybe it works better now?
magicalhippo 4 hours ago [-]
Yes, the docs[1] tells you to match the redundancy level of the pool, but you could technically do something else.
Note the docs say level and not type. So if you have raid-z1 the a mirror would be appropriate as they both tolerate losing a single disk, and if you have raid-z2 you can use a 3-way mirror etc.
You do, the normal way is to create a special metadata devices of mirrored SSD's. You do not need a 3 way mirror, as ZFS by default stores 2 copies of your metadata.
bjt12345 10 hours ago [-]
Oh I miss Optane drives.
whazor 8 hours ago [-]
Theoretically, since you have three drives you want one drive to be with writeback. This way you could double the speed of your writes.
Padriac 10 hours ago [-]
RAID is great but without monitoring and alerting you can still have a problem. Better still is the automatic creation of incident records and escalation.
sneak 6 hours ago [-]
One thing I’ve been doing lately is storing data on SSDs or raid0s of SSDs, then running continuous backups of changed files to a slow HDD. I don’t have single-transaction data safety requirements and the window in which I can lose data is very small, given that the backups run continuously.
This is so much faster than these hyper-vigilant HA setups, too, while being quite a bit cheaper (the HDDs can be in a different box or building, or be Glacier, or whatever).
iam-TJ 8 hours ago [-]
When using LVM there is no need to use separate mdadm (MD) based RAID - just use LVM's own RAID support.
I have a workstation with four storage devices; two 512GB SSDs, one 1GB SSD, and one 3TB HDD. I use LUKS/dm_crypt for Full Disk Encryption (FDE) of the OS and most data volumes but two of the SSDs and the volumes they hold are unencrypted. These are for caching or public and ephemeral data that can easily be replaced: source-code of public projects, build products, experimental and temporary OS/VM images, and the like.
dmsetup ls | wc -l
reports 100 device-mapper Logical Volumes (LV). However only 30 are volumes exposing file-systems or OS images according to:
ls -1 /dev/mapper/${VG}-* | grep -E "${VG}-[^_]+$" | wc -l
The other 70 are LVM raid1 mirrors, writecache, crypt or other target-type volumes.
This arrangement allows me to choose caching, raid, and any other device-mapper target combinations on a per-LV basis. I divide the file-system hierarchy into multiple mounted LVs and each is tailored to its usage, so I can choose both device-mapper options and file-system type. For example, /var/lib/machines/ is a LV with BTRFS to work with systemd-nspawn/machined so I have a base OS sub-volume and then various per-application snapshots based on it, whereas /home/ is RAID 1 mirror over multiple devices and /etc/ is also a RAID 1 mirror.
The RAID 1 mirrors can be easily backed-up to remote hosts using iSCSI block devices. Simply add the iSCSI volume to the mirror as an additional member, allow it to sync 100%, and then remove it from the mirror (one just needs to be aware of and minimising open files when doing so - syncing on start-up or shutdown when users are logged out is a useful strategy or from the startup or shutdown initrd).
Doing it this way rather than as file backups means in the event of disaster I can recover immediately on another PC simply by creating an LV RAID 1 with the iSCSI volume, adding local member volumes, letting the local volumes sync, then removing the iSCSI volume.
I initially allocate a minimum of space to each volume. If a volume gets close to capacity - or runs out - I simply do a live resize using e.g:
lvextend --resizefs --size +32G ${VG}/${LV}
or, if I want to direct it to use a specific Physical Volume (PV) for the new space:
lvextend --resizefs --size +32G ${VG}/${LV} ${PV}
One has to be aware that --resizefs uses 'fsadmn' and only supports a limited set of file-systems (ext*, ReiserFS and XFS) so if using BTRFS or others their own resize operations are required, e.g:
btrfs filesystem resize max /srv/NAS/${VG}/${LV}
ecef9-8c0f-4374 7 hours ago [-]
Mdadm raid is rock solid. Lvm raid is not at the same level. There was a bug for years that made me doubt anybody even uses lvm-raids.
I could not fix a broken raid without unmounting it. Mdadm and ext4 is what I use in production with all my trust. Lvm and btrfs for hobby projects.
rzzzt 7 hours ago [-]
XFS could only grow in size for quite a while (using xfs_growfs), don't know if that changed in recent times.
ggm 10 hours ago [-]
The logic for not zfs cited reduces to two things: FUD and not in baseline Linux.
The pro case for BTRFS is being able to do JBOD with a bit of additional comfort around mirror state over drives.
dangus 53 minutes ago [-]
Yeah I really didn’t understand why ZFS or something like a TrueNAS dedicated storage solution setup was ruled out so quickly.
But before we even go there, we have to consider an all-SSD solution. SSDs are so cheap nowadays. It’s a trivial cost to buy a 2-4TB SSD. Heck, even an 8TB SSD is reasonably affordable, only about $600.
So first step is justifying a complicated caching setup. Why cache at all when you can just use all SSD storage and bring the complexity down a whole lot?
And if you’re using more than 2-8TB of storage and you’re in the spinning disk territory, why are you not using a dedicated NAS solution like TrueNAS?
This solution just seems like one of the worst possible choices.
I've always built my systems like this:
two hard disks => RAID1 => LVM VG1. nvme => LVM VG2
Because at some point I decided LVM is just like flexible partitions and didn't pay much attention to the huge amounts of other stuff in the manpages.
Turns out that's a pretty crappy way of doing things.
LVM can do RAID, can deal with moving things across devices, and has many other fancy features. So instead of the above, stick it all into the same VG without RAID on top.
You can RAID individual LVs. Some RAID1, some RAID5, some RAID0, some nothing, and pick on which disks stuff goes. You can add integrity checking which is not something MD RAID does. You can do caching. You can do writable snapshots. You can do thin provisioning. It's extremely flexible tech.
The only thing I'd recommend staying away from is thin provisioning unless it's necessary. The performance impact is significant, virt-manager for some reason doesn't see thin LVs as legitimate disks (can be worked around easily though) and thin provisioning seems to be able to develop faults of its own. I've had one old setup where one block was somehow not readable and it seems to be a thin provisioning thing -- it doesn't say the underlying disk is bad, it's something more along the lines of the metadata being broken.
To upgrade you can do things like moving LVs from one disk to another to free it up and remove it. Disks of different sizes are much less of a problem than with standard RAID, too.
Once the SSD was on the server, I did a "pvmove" to move the data from spinning array to SSD, while the system was up and running. Over the next several hours the load on the server dropped. It was comical that these 8 hard drives could be replaced by something smaller than my wallet.
But pvmove was the other star of this show.
They are tiny and often hit with a huge number of IOPS.
Ext4 supported external journals and moving it to a single SSD for a large number of otherwise slow SMR disks has worked great in the past.
However, when you hit a failure that SSD becomes a single root cause of data loss from several disks when losing that SSD (unlike a read cache).
Where I was working that didn't matter as I was mostly working with HDFS which both likes a JBOD layout of several disks instead of RAID (no battery backed write caches), tolerant to a single node failing completely and having a ton more metadata operations thanks to writing a single large file as many fixed-size files named blk_<something> with a lot of directories containing thousands of files.
SSDs were expensive then, but it's been a decade of getting cheaper from that.
In theory you can massively reduce this risk by keeping a copy of the journal in memory so it only corrupts if you have a disk loss and a power outage within a few seconds of each other. But I don't know if the tools available would let you do that properly.
The next step up is building a "metadata" device, which stores the filesystem metadata but not data. This is dangerous in the way the ext4 journal is; lose the metadata, and you lose everything.
Both are massive speedups. When doing big writes, a bunch of spinning rust can't achieve full throughput without a SSD ZIL. My 8+2 array can write nearly two gigabits, but it's abysmal (roughly the speed of a single drive) without a ZIL.
Likewise, a metadata device can make the whole filesystem feel as snappy as SSD, but it's unnecessary if you have enough cache space; ZFS prefers it, so if your metadata fits into your cache SSD, most of it will stay loaded
ZIL is also basically write only storage, therefore sad without very significant over provisioning will die quickly (you only read from ZIL after unclean shutdown)
if you don't really case about latest version of file (risk of loosing recent chances is acceptable) you might set sync=disabled for that dataset and you can have great performance without ZIL
The pool always has a ZIL, but you can put it on a separate device, or decices, with SLOG[1].
[1]: https://www.truenas.com/docs/references/zilandslog/
It's been a long time since I set that up, but the home storage has spinning rust plus a raid 1 of crucial ssd (sata! But ones with a capacitor to hopefully handle writes after power loss), where the directory I care about performance for lives on the ssd subarray. Still presents as one blob of storage. Metadata on the ssd too, probably no ZIL but could be wrong about that. Made ls a lot more reasonable.
Thinking about it that system must be trundling towards expected death, it might be a decade old now.
this means your your drive need to be dead for raid to do it's protection and this is usually the case.
the problem is when starts corrupting data it reads of writes. in that case raid have no way to know that and can even corrupt data on the healthy drive. (data is read corrupted and then written to both drives)
the issue is that there are 2 copies of the data and raid have no way of telling with one is correct so it's basically flips a coin and select one of them, even if filesystem knows that content makes no sense.
that's basically biggest advantage of filesystems like zfs or btrfs that manage raid themselves, they have checksums and that know with copy is valid and are able to recover and say that one drive appears healthy but it's corrupting data so you probably want to replace it
The "cool" part was that I ran a cronjob that rendered the map to a png file once and hour, and at some point a friend asked why there were holes in the map. Back then, Minecraft stored every 16x16 chunk of the map in an individual gzipped file. When the raid1 decided to read the chunk from the bad drive, it couldn't unzip it. If that happened to the renderer, there was a hole on the map. If that happened to the game server, it would regenerate the chunk, and overwrite the old one on both drives, even the healthy one. Luckily as far a I remember that only happened on random terrain, otherwise someone would have ended up with half their house missing.
IMHO flexible tiering rather than caching would be very nice for many Systems as it is rather difficult to teach users to separate rather stale data from changing data. Often does not have to be perfect.
A FUSE-based solution is autotier: https://github.com/45Drives/autotier
I used lvm cache to put ZFS on top of local NVMe for write-back caching of iSCSI targets, as ZFS has good built-in read caching.
Worked pretty well in the limited tests I did, but it's not magic. Main reason I didn't pursue is that it felt a bit like a house of cards. Though on the positive side, one could always mount the underlying storage, ie partitions serving the iSCSI targets, as a local pool on another machine.
https://www.rsync.net/resources/notes/2021-q3-rsync.net_tech...
This is a quick and easy way to add thousands of iops to even something very slow like a raidz3 zpool.
As always:
"Let's repeat, and emphasize: unlike an SLOG or L2ARC which are merely inconvenient to lose, if you lose your metadata vdev (your "special" vdev) you will lose your entire zpool just as surely as if you lost one of the other full vdevs ..."
If you also want to have fast writes you can get a second SSD and set up a mirrored metadata device (storing metadata on mirrored SSDs, and regular data on whatever the rest of your pool uses)
Maybe it works better now?
Note the docs say level and not type. So if you have raid-z1 the a mirror would be appropriate as they both tolerate losing a single disk, and if you have raid-z2 you can use a 3-way mirror etc.
[1]: https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/man/master/7/zpoolcon...
This is so much faster than these hyper-vigilant HA setups, too, while being quite a bit cheaper (the HDDs can be in a different box or building, or be Glacier, or whatever).
I have a workstation with four storage devices; two 512GB SSDs, one 1GB SSD, and one 3TB HDD. I use LUKS/dm_crypt for Full Disk Encryption (FDE) of the OS and most data volumes but two of the SSDs and the volumes they hold are unencrypted. These are for caching or public and ephemeral data that can easily be replaced: source-code of public projects, build products, experimental and temporary OS/VM images, and the like.
reports 100 device-mapper Logical Volumes (LV). However only 30 are volumes exposing file-systems or OS images according to: The other 70 are LVM raid1 mirrors, writecache, crypt or other target-type volumes.This arrangement allows me to choose caching, raid, and any other device-mapper target combinations on a per-LV basis. I divide the file-system hierarchy into multiple mounted LVs and each is tailored to its usage, so I can choose both device-mapper options and file-system type. For example, /var/lib/machines/ is a LV with BTRFS to work with systemd-nspawn/machined so I have a base OS sub-volume and then various per-application snapshots based on it, whereas /home/ is RAID 1 mirror over multiple devices and /etc/ is also a RAID 1 mirror.
The RAID 1 mirrors can be easily backed-up to remote hosts using iSCSI block devices. Simply add the iSCSI volume to the mirror as an additional member, allow it to sync 100%, and then remove it from the mirror (one just needs to be aware of and minimising open files when doing so - syncing on start-up or shutdown when users are logged out is a useful strategy or from the startup or shutdown initrd).
Doing it this way rather than as file backups means in the event of disaster I can recover immediately on another PC simply by creating an LV RAID 1 with the iSCSI volume, adding local member volumes, letting the local volumes sync, then removing the iSCSI volume.
I initially allocate a minimum of space to each volume. If a volume gets close to capacity - or runs out - I simply do a live resize using e.g:
or, if I want to direct it to use a specific Physical Volume (PV) for the new space: One has to be aware that --resizefs uses 'fsadmn' and only supports a limited set of file-systems (ext*, ReiserFS and XFS) so if using BTRFS or others their own resize operations are required, e.g:The pro case for BTRFS is being able to do JBOD with a bit of additional comfort around mirror state over drives.
But before we even go there, we have to consider an all-SSD solution. SSDs are so cheap nowadays. It’s a trivial cost to buy a 2-4TB SSD. Heck, even an 8TB SSD is reasonably affordable, only about $600.
So first step is justifying a complicated caching setup. Why cache at all when you can just use all SSD storage and bring the complexity down a whole lot?
And if you’re using more than 2-8TB of storage and you’re in the spinning disk territory, why are you not using a dedicated NAS solution like TrueNAS?
This solution just seems like one of the worst possible choices.