Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'll be creating a Linux storage server with several TB capacity using a hardware RAID array. But I was wondering, what are my options for extending it in the future?

To be more specifiec, if I create a volume group with the local RAID array as physical volume, I suppose it is not smart to include a iSCSI target in that same volume group and extend the size of the logical volume? I mean, when the iSCSI link is/goes down, the logical volume will probably be corrupted.

Is there a safe way to extent the size of that logical volume or should I just make another logical volume?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

What's the file system in use on the LUN?

I ask because as far as I remember, you can't resize a VMFS volume. So if you're using VMFS and hosting VMs on this space, your best bet is to migrate your data to another LUN, then destroy and re-provision the LUN across the extra disks.

Edit: To clarify - Adding additional capacity to a LUN is feasible with extents, but not recommended practice (direct advice from VMWare support/techs). This was accurate as of 12 months ago.

share|improve this answer
    
The filesystem has not yet been decided. Can be Ext3, Ext4 or perhaps xfs. XFS would be a suitable canidate because it's going to handle large files. –  Halfgaar Aug 2 '10 at 11:27

I have a similar scenario, I also fear that the VG might be corrupted if the iSCSI target goes down.

So, I have also been specifying the physical volume when I create LVs in the hopes that if one PV goes down, it will allow other LVs based on other PVs to continue. I plan to test this, and if I can think of it, I'll post back some results. Of course, if you want to have a single LV greater than the size of a single PV, that approach doesn't really fly.

In general, my longer-term plan is to expand the server later with SAS-attached storage arrays -- but I know that's not exactly what you asked. I would trust that a whole lot better than iSCSI targets -- I HAVE had really good luck with iSCSI, but reboots require a lot of thought about the order -- i.e. what needs to be shut down first.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.