Re: ccd vs LVM

[Dan LaBell <dan4l-nospam%verizon.net@localhost>]

On Apr 8, 2019, at 8:15 AM, Stephen Borrill wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2019, Michael van Elst wrote:
>
> > kab00m%lich.phys.spbu.ru@localhost (Dima Veselov) writes:
> >
> > > If anyone knows - what is the best practice in
> > > performance and fault-tolerance - ccd or LVM?
> >
> > Neither is fault-tolerant, CCD only supports striping
> > and we have only implemented striping for LVM.
>
> You can concatentate with ccd, you don't have to stripe (a.k.a.  
> interleave):
>
>      A ccd may be either serially concatenated or interleaved.  To  
> serially
>      concatenate the partitions, specify the interleave factor of 0.
Last time, I used concatentated ccd, it was great, unless
one drive would go to sleep, and then it was kernel-hang-city.
Not, a system admin but I can play one on t.v. ;-*
Generally, I believe, that's called something other than full
supported by the operating system.

I hope, CCD is still useful in a pinch, like it was.
Perhaps, if there is ever a disklabel replacement, it will
have as a design requirement, it will be AWK like, like the
existing PLUS preserve the knowledge somehow as what it
the works for the specific thing, labeled, as far energy saving
features, and of course, how to do it will be in corresponding
tools.

The goal of AWK was not to pre-replace PERL, if that could
be done, but actually, provide the tool, to the market place
of ideas, to the guys, who actually just need one good 150 percent
day, and then do it all with that self-modifying shell-script.
That's where the BEGIN. END. line by line REGULAR EXPRESSION BLOCK
concept, rocks, imo.