Re: [linux-lvm] Saying goodbye to LVM

Re: [linux-lvm] Saying goodbye to LVM

[matthew patton]

Xen wrote:
 

>  Yes Ubuntu runs a long time behind and Debian also.
> As a user, I can't help that, upgrading LVM just like that to have less 
>...  seems also  fraught with peril.
>
>  So if you're on Xenial, you are stuck with the features but without the  protection.

Don't use a distro that is sloppy about looking out for the end-user? I can't speak for how 'stable' LVM is in their releases or if anyone expends effort to identify "golden" releases vs "preview / dangerous" releases...

>  particular there is a quagmire of situations ... only get out of the situation with dmsetup remove, 
> but I didn't  know this at first.

Which is part of the problem, really. You were trying to do 'expert' things without the requisite background or knowledge. Now granted we learn by shooting ourselves in the foot from time to time but the blood loss is never pleasant. You either learn quickly or you pick another tool that has spent the time to put proper dependency/protection in place such that 'EXPERTS ONLY NEED APPLY' is not the phrase of the day.

I think LVM does need to step it up in putting proper safeguards in place before calling a feature release-worthy. If you have a feature then it is REQUIRED that it also have ALL of the necessary dependency check logic fully implemented. Otherwise it is a BUG and has no business being published in a manner that careless distros can activate it.

If multiple PVs show up with duplicate ID or other bad characteristics there needs to be a well documented mechanism for rectifying the situation written from the POV of a user/sysadmin and not a developer who happens to know all the inner workings. Are metadata time-stamped or otherwise versioned so even if you see what looks to be a conflict the 'age' of the metadata can give an indication which one is likely to be correct? If not, why not?

> A missing cache device cannot be removed without the missing cache  device being present.

That's retarded. Is this a correct characterization? If so, how did that get past the release audit?

 

Re: [linux-lvm] Saying goodbye to LVM

[Xen]

Gionatan Danti schreef op 07-02-2018 22:19:

>> LVM just has conceptual problems.
> 
> As a CentOS user, I *never* encountered such problems. I really think
> these are caused by the lack of proper integration testing from
> Debian/Ubuntu.

That would only apply to udev/boot problems, not the tooling issues.

If you never make DD copies, you never run into such issues.

And if you don't use Cache you won't have those missing PV issues 
either.

Maybe I am just great at finding missing features but LVM has in the end 
cost me a lot more time than it has saved me.

I mean, if I had just stuck to regular partitions I would have been 
further ahead in life by now ;-).

Including any lack of LVM expertise I would have had by then. Which, in 
the end, I don't think is worth it.


> But hey - all key LVM developers are RedHat people, so
> it should be expected (for the better/worse).

The denialist nature of Linux people ensures that even if LVM upstream 
says UPGRADE, Ubuntu will say "why? everything works fine for me".

Or, "I never ran into such issues" ;-).

> True. I never use it with boot device.

Even on Solaris it is limited, for example the root pool cannot have an 
external log device (that means SLOG). Then, you have no clue if this is 
also going to be the case on Linux or not ;-). And Grub supports booting 
from a root dataset but only barely, I don't think anything else (e.g. a 
ZVOL) is any kind of realism. The biggest downside is inflexibility in 
shrinking pools, and people complain about ZVOL snapshots requiring a 
lot of space.

Btrfs, on the other hand, supports removing disks from raid sets and 
just reorganizing what's left.

> LVM and XFS are, on the other
> hand, extremely well integrated into mainline kernel/userspace
> utilities.

Except that apparently there are (or were, or can be) extreme 
initramfs/udev issues and the Ubuntu support/integration has been flimsy 
at best -- what's not flimsy is Grub support, it will even load an 
embedded LVM just fine.

I mean you can have an LV on a PV that is an LV on a PV and Grub will be 
able to read it, the Ubuntu initramfs will not.

> Hence my great interest in stratis...

I don't deny you there but I wonder if I'm not better off sticking to 
ordinary partitions ;-).

But my main idea is to use compressed ZVOLs if I can.

You can just stick partition tables on those too. ZFS has a lot of 
different "models".

Re: [linux-lvm] Saying goodbye to LVM

[Gionatan Danti]

Il 07-02-2018 21:37 Xen ha scritto:
> This is the reason for the problems but LVM released bad products all
> the same with the solution being to not use them for very long, or
> rather, to upgrade.
> 
> Yes Ubuntu runs a long time behind and Debian also.
> 
> As a user, I can't help that, upgrading LVM just like that to have
> less "there is a pit here but we won't tell you about that" simply
> seems also fraught with peril.
> 
> For example, upgrading LVM slightly to 160 caused udev problems I
> didn't have before.
> 
> So you can blame the distributions, you can also blame features being
> released first and proper protection only being added much later.
> 
> So if you're on Xenial, you are stuck with the features but without
> the protection.
> 
> In particular there is a quagmire of situations you can end up with
> wrt the shielding and dual activation of the same vg, many times of
> which you can only get out of the situation with dmsetup remove, but I
> didn't know this at first.
> 
> Or you end up in the situation where a PV is missing and you cannot
> edit the VG, but in order to remove the PV you have to edit the VG.
> 
> A missing cache device cannot be removed without the missing cache
> device being present.
> 
> I meant to say, you can have 2 disks out of sync and resolving it is
> not possible other than by editing config on disk and doing
> vgcfgrestore.
> 
> But you can't do vgcfgrestore without removing a missing PV first.
> 
> There is a huge amount of chicken and egg problems because physically
> a VG sits inside a PV but logically a PV sits inside a VG and this
> constantly causes issues.
> 
> LVM just has conceptual problems.

As a CentOS user, I *never* encountered such problems. I really think 
these are caused by the lack of proper integration testing from 
Debian/Ubuntu. But hey - all key LVM developers are RedHat people, so it 
should be expected (for the better/worse).

I can not say anything about lvmcache, though.

> 
> I cannot write more yet because I don't have ZFS setup yet.
> 
> I don't like ZFS too much because it's opaque and Linux support seems
> to be flimsy (for example boot support) and the only good
> documentation is Oracle but it often does not apply.

True. I never use it with boot device. LVM and XFS are, on the other 
hand, extremely well integrated into mainline kernel/userspace 
utilities.

Hence my great interest in stratis...
Regards.

-- 
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.danti@assyoma.it - info@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8

Re: [linux-lvm] Saying goodbye to LVM

[Xen]

Gionatan Danti schreef op 07-02-2018 19:42:

> I am both a LVM/ThinLVM and ZFS heavy user, so I hope to be impartial 
> here...
> 
> LVM and its lvmthin counterpart are *rock solid* in my experience,
> except in the (very) edge case of full thin pool (this was lengthly
> discussed in the past, and both Zednek and Jonathan gave accurate
> suggestions on how to avoid that).
> 
> However, in my experience, the only distribution which keep updated
> version of lvm kernel and user space utilities is RHEL/CentOS. I found
> Debian and Ubuntu based distributions particularly *bad* at managing
> LVM and device mapper targets in general.

This is the reason for the problems but LVM released bad products all 
the same with the solution being to not use them for very long, or 
rather, to upgrade.

Yes Ubuntu runs a long time behind and Debian also.

As a user, I can't help that, upgrading LVM just like that to have less 
"there is a pit here but we won't tell you about that" simply seems also 
fraught with peril.

For example, upgrading LVM slightly to 160 caused udev problems I didn't 
have before.

So you can blame the distributions, you can also blame features being 
released first and proper protection only being added much later.

So if you're on Xenial, you are stuck with the features but without the 
protection.

In particular there is a quagmire of situations you can end up with wrt 
the shielding and dual activation of the same vg, many times of which 
you can only get out of the situation with dmsetup remove, but I didn't 
know this at first.

Or you end up in the situation where a PV is missing and you cannot edit 
the VG, but in order to remove the PV you have to edit the VG.

A missing cache device cannot be removed without the missing cache 
device being present.

I meant to say, you can have 2 disks out of sync and resolving it is not 
possible other than by editing config on disk and doing vgcfgrestore.

But you can't do vgcfgrestore without removing a missing PV first.

There is a huge amount of chicken and egg problems because physically a 
VG sits inside a PV but logically a PV sits inside a VG and this 
constantly causes issues.

LVM just has conceptual problems.

> That said, ZFS really is outstanding (especially checksum and
> compression, albeit is sorely lacks reflinks). I really have high
> hopes for stratis (https://github.com/stratis-storage), which plan to
> provide ZFS-like feature using stacked device mapper targets (which
> our beloved LVM targets on top).

I cannot write more yet because I don't have ZFS setup yet.

I don't like ZFS too much because it's opaque and Linux support seems to 
be flimsy (for example boot support) and the only good documentation is 
Oracle but it often does not apply.

Re: [linux-lvm] Saying goodbye to LVM

[pattonme]

When do we run out of turtles?

  Original Message  
From: Gionatan Danti
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 13:50
To: LVM general discussion and development
Reply To: LVM general discussion and development
Cc: Xen
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Saying goodbye to LVM

‎ally have high hopes 
for stratis (https://github.com/stratis-storage), which plan to provide 
ZFS-like feature using stacked device mapper targets (which our beloved 
LVM targets on top)

Re: [linux-lvm] Saying goodbye to LVM

[Gionatan Danti]

Il 01-02-2018 17:45 Xen ha scritto:
> You are probably happy about this, but...
> 
> I managed to get LVM to corrupt my data on Ubuntu Xenial 3 times now.
> 
> All of that is related to:
> 
> - LVM not checking or behaving correctly when a duplicate PV appears
> - LVM not checking or behaving correctly when a cache volume is out of
> sync with its origin.
> 
> In addition the thin DM target of kernel 3.x was so buggy I couldn't
> compile anything big without the system hanging.
> 
> I will probably become a ZFS user.
> 
> Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish.

I am both a LVM/ThinLVM and ZFS heavy user, so I hope to be impartial 
here...

LVM and its lvmthin counterpart are *rock solid* in my experience, 
except in the (very) edge case of full thin pool (this was lengthly 
discussed in the past, and both Zednek and Jonathan gave accurate 
suggestions on how to avoid that).

However, in my experience, the only distribution which keep updated 
version of lvm kernel and user space utilities is RHEL/CentOS. I found 
Debian and Ubuntu based distributions particularly *bad* at managing LVM 
and device mapper targets in general.

I am not using lvmcache, so I can not speak for it.

That said, ZFS really is outstanding (especially checksum and 
compression, albeit is sorely lacks reflinks). I really have high hopes 
for stratis (https://github.com/stratis-storage), which plan to provide 
ZFS-like feature using stacked device mapper targets (which our beloved 
LVM targets on top).

Regards.

-- 
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.danti@assyoma.it - info@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8

Re: [linux-lvm] Saying goodbye to LVM

[John Stoffel]

If you think zfs will be the answer... then good luck.  So where did a new PV come from that had the same UUID as the existing ones?  Basically the more details you give... then we can try to help.

But in any case, good luck.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 1, 2018, at 11:45 AM, Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> wrote:
> 
> You are probably happy about this, but...
> 
> I managed to get LVM to corrupt my data on Ubuntu Xenial 3 times now.
> 
> All of that is related to:
> 
> - LVM not checking or behaving correctly when a duplicate PV appears
> - LVM not checking or behaving correctly when a cache volume is out of sync with its origin.
> 
> In addition the thin DM target of kernel 3.x was so buggy I couldn't compile anything big without the system hanging.
> 
> I will probably become a ZFS user.
> 
> Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/

[linux-lvm] Saying goodbye to LVM

[Xen]

You are probably happy about this, but...

I managed to get LVM to corrupt my data on Ubuntu Xenial 3 times now.

All of that is related to:

- LVM not checking or behaving correctly when a duplicate PV appears
- LVM not checking or behaving correctly when a cache volume is out of 
sync with its origin.

In addition the thin DM target of kernel 3.x was so buggy I couldn't 
compile anything big without the system hanging.

I will probably become a ZFS user.

Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish.