On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:

On 12/30/2014 10:25 PM, Rodney Baker wrote:

...

Hi all. A question for those with a little more experience with SSD's. I want to move oS 13.1 from conventional HDD's to a 128GB SSD, everything except /home. /var and some other general data storage partitions (so basically /boot, /, /usr, /usr/local and /opt.

I have these already as separate partitions - can I use dd to copy the boot sector and relevant partitions to the SSD and then connect it up in place of the first hdd (currently /dev/sda) and expect the system to boot?

Would it be better to dd the boot sector, then create the new partitions and rsync them across?

Ultimately migrating is just ... Migrating. That this is HD->SSD is no different from migrating from HD(IDE) to HD(SATA) for example.

False, false, false == HD's don't treat unallocated space special; SSDs do. dd doesn't treat unallocated special; rsync ignores it. Thus in general dd is not a great tool to use when initializing SSDs. == Thus, using dd to go from a HD to another HD is great. Neither one pay any attention to the allocated / unallocated bifurcation. == Any time the destination is a SSD, I would use rsync so that only allocated data is copied to it. == It "could be" that running dd to copy all the data over followed by running fstrim to inform the SSD about where all the unallocated space is will work out well. On the other hand, modern mkfs will inform the SSD that all the space in the filesystem is unallocated. Then rsync will only allocate the space needed. Thus mkfs followed by rsync is pretty much gaureenteed to not over allocate space on the SSD, but using dd depends on fstrim doing its job well. == Even with the mkfs / rsync process pay attention to the "discard": "mkfs discard" for ext3/ext4 based filesystems. It should be default, but I would pass it in just to be sure. For XFS, mkfs defaults to using discard at mkfs time. You have to pass in -K to prevent it from happening. == Then for rsync, you want to ensure sparse files on the HDD stay sparse files on the SSD. You use the --sparse argument for that. If you screw that up, I don't know of any routine maintenance tool that will search a file for sections of nulls and convert them to sparse. You need to get it right the first time. Greg -- Greg Freemyer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:06:38 Greg Freemyer wrote:

On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:

...

On 12/30/2014 10:25 PM, Rodney Baker wrote:

...

Hi all. A question for those with a little more experience with SSD's. I want to move oS 13.1 from conventional HDD's to a 128GB SSD, everything except /home. /var and some other general data storage partitions (so basically /boot, /, /usr, /usr/local and /opt.

I have these already as separate partitions - can I use dd to copy the boot sector and relevant partitions to the SSD and then connect it up in place of the first hdd (currently /dev/sda) and expect the system to boot?

Would it be better to dd the boot sector, then create the new partitions and rsync them across?

Ultimately migrating is just ... Migrating. That this is HD->SSD is no different from migrating from HD(IDE) to HD(SATA) for example.

False, false, false ==

HD's don't treat unallocated space special; SSDs do.

dd doesn't treat unallocated special; rsync ignores it.

Thus in general dd is not a great tool to use when initializing SSDs.

== Thus, using dd to go from a HD to another HD is great. Neither one pay any attention to the allocated / unallocated bifurcation.

== Any time the destination is a SSD, I would use rsync so that only allocated data is copied to it.

== It "could be" that running dd to copy all the data over followed by running fstrim to inform the SSD about where all the unallocated space is will work out well.

On the other hand, modern mkfs will inform the SSD that all the space in the filesystem is unallocated. Then rsync will only allocate the space needed.

Thus mkfs followed by rsync is pretty much gaureenteed to not over allocate space on the SSD, but using dd depends on fstrim doing its job well.

== Even with the mkfs / rsync process pay attention to the "discard":

"mkfs discard" for ext3/ext4 based filesystems. It should be default, but I would pass it in just to be sure.

For XFS, mkfs defaults to using discard at mkfs time. You have to pass in -K to prevent it from happening.

== Then for rsync, you want to ensure sparse files on the HDD stay sparse files on the SSD. You use the --sparse argument for that. If you screw that up, I don't know of any routine maintenance tool that will search a file for sections of nulls and convert them to sparse. You need to get it right the first time.

Greg -- Greg Freemyer

Thanks, Anton, Greg and all others who replied. This is exactly the info I was after. Anton, your comments re use-cases are noted. I don't leave this system running 24/7 - I boot it as needed, so moving the OS to the SSD will benefit by reducing boot times (yes, OK, os I'm impatient). :) Reducing application load times won't hurt either. I'll consider carefully what else I'll put on the SSD. I have 16GB RAM and a quad-core i5-2400 so neither of those things should represent performance bottlenecks. /tmp, /sys/, /dev/shm, /var/run and /var/lock already exist as tmpfs (50% of system ram is currently allocated, but I could comfortably reduce that if needed as usage normally sits around 1% unless I'm creating a DVD ISO image). Swap could comfortably live on the SSD, but I was more concerned about the number of write cycles that would use. Mind you, the system spends little to no time swapping under normal usage - I can fairly comfortably run with swap turned off most of the time. Greg, thanks for the tips - knowing your experience with storage systems I was hoping you'd have some useful hints, and you came through. :) The disk is a Samsung 850 PRO and Samsung actually provide a native linux CLI tool for management. They do say, though, that (for their tool) trim is only supported for ext4. I understand that other filesystems have native trim support built in, but I'm most comfortable with ext3/ext4 at this point in time anyway (although I do use xfs on at least one data storage partition). I think I now have a way forward, anyway, with a backout strategy if I stuff it up along the way. Regards and Happy New Year to all. Rodney. -- ============================================================== Rodney Baker VK5ZTV rodney.baker@iinet.net.au ============================================================== -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Rodney Baker wrote:

...

The disk is a Samsung 850 PRO and Samsung actually provide a native linux CLI tool for management. They do say, though, that (for their tool) trim is only supported for ext4. I understand that other filesystems have native trim support built in, but I'm most comfortable with ext3/ext4 at this point in time anyway (although I do use xfs on at least one data storage

On Fri, 2 Jan 2015 17:35:43 Greg Freemyer wrote: partition).

Beware of filesystem's with built in trim.

Basically if you pass in an argument at mount time, you are engaging realtime trim.

If you have to schedule a nightly (or weekly) trim command, then it is batched trim.

== Batched trim is basically safe and a performance benefit for any SSD.

Realtime trim is a different matter. For almost all SSDs sold (or designed) in 2013 or before, it is a performance hit. Newer SSDs support asynchronous trim. That is the feature need to have before realtime trim is a net benefit.

For me, I still stick to batched mode exclusively.

FYI: Windows runs batched mode only as far as I know, so realtime trim has not been an important feature for SSD manufacturers.

Greg -- Greg Freemyer

Thanks again for everone's input. Successful migration completed a few days ago with no real problems (a couple of minor fights with grub2 to stop it mounting the old / from the soon-to-be-decommissioned hdd instead of from the new ssd...). Boot times and program load times are dramatically improved. :) Tonight I've made some more changes, converting 2x 1TB RAID 1 arrays (one held /home, the other a data storage partition) into 2x 1TB RAID 10 arrays, with a corresponding improvement in read/write speed for /home (noticeably speeding up KDE4 startup times as well). Not as big a jump as an SSD, but redundancy plus improved I/O performance is a plus in my book. :) All of this just goes to prove that you can throw fast processors and lots of RAM at the system (16GB in my case), but then the performance limiting factor becomes the disk I/O system. A lot of processes on oS13.1/KDE4 seem to be I/O bound (probably due to the modularity achieved through lots of dependencies on shared libraries). Still - it's finally feeling like it's getting closer to it's performance potential. Once 2TB SSD prices come down a bit more, I'll have to replace some more HDD's with SSD's. Regards to all, Rodney. -- ============================================================== Rodney Baker VK5ZTV rodney.baker@iinet.net.au ============================================================== -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Florian Gleixner wrote:

On 12/31/2014 04:25 AM, Rodney Baker wrote:

...

Hi all. A question for those with a little more experience with SSD's. I want to move oS 13.1 from conventional HDD's to a 128GB SSD, everything except /home. /var and some other general data storage partitions (so basically /boot, /, /usr, /usr/local and /opt.

I have these already as separate partitions - can I use dd to copy the boot sector and relevant partitions to the SSD and then connect it up in place of the first hdd (currently /dev/sda) and expect the system to boot?

Would it be better to dd the boot sector, then create the new partitions and rsync them across?

Yes, I will need to adjust fstab to point to the relocated partitions, but I'd rather not do a full re-install if I don't need to.

Thanks in advance, & Happy New Year. Rodney.

This is why i like LVM2, you can do a live migration - add your disk, configure it in LVM2 and "pvmove" your content to the new disk. No need to alter fstab. Only bootloader needs to be altered, if you want to remove the old disk.

If you don't use LVM2, i would boot from CD/USB in rescue mode, create filesystems on the ssd and copy the data with rsync. Take care to preserve metadata (permissions, symbolic links, extended attributes ...) - if you don't want to care - use dd. Alter the fstab and try to boot. If it works, you can remove the old filesystems, if not, rescue boot and try again.

I would use grub2-install or yast2 after booting with ssd, if you want to move the /boot or the boot sector.

When an LVM works (Linux LVM or any other LVM), it works great. When an LVM fails, it makes the mess 3x worse to clean up and get your system back up and running. I use LVM *only* in circumstances in which an LVM is needed. Otherwise, all it does is create more points of failure. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Anton Aylward wrote:

On 01/05/2015 03:55 PM, Joe Zappa wrote:

...

When an LVM works (Linux LVM or any other LVM), it works great.

When an LVM fails, it makes the mess 3x worse to clean up and get your system back up and running.

Long before we had a functioning LVM with Linux I was using the "same thing" under AID. That was way back in the mid 1990s, though I believe that the Vx system, the "Veritas manager" was IBMs from the beginning of the 1990s, with a shoo-in to OSF. HP later licenced it.

No discussion of LVM history should take place without mentioning Heinz Mauelshagen, who did some of the earliest LVM on Linux work.

There was some variance with Linux's LVM1, but the command set we see in LVM2 is the same as I was using all the way up to AIX5.2 when I switched over to Redhat, mandrake and eventually Suse.

I found LVM2 to be stable, though I worked with with grub-orig and a boot and ROOT on real partitions. When grub2 came along I moved ROOT to LVM quite successfully and with no problems at all.

The disaster struck! LVM was 'optimized" and "lvmetad" was introduced. Go back through the archives and you can see the problems we had if the initrd had a mismatch over that, if the 'daemon' was expected but wasn't there. So we turned lvmetad off, but something keeps turning it back on and the system won't reboot and Rescue Mode is required. https://forums.opensuse.org/showthread.php/495141-boot-problem-after-lvm2-up... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989607 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813766 Peter Rajnoha's suggestion makes sense Sadly this was resolved with an "errata" notice!

And this has NOTHING to do with systemd, don't start on about that!

...

I use LVM *only* in circumstances in which an LVM is needed.

Otherwise, all it does is create more points of failure.

The "only when" is a YMMV. By the same logic, using BtrFS (or could that be any FS?) creates more points of failure. Yet the logic of BtrFS is that it should subsume all disk space in order to balance/optimize.

YMMV.

As things stand I see no advantage to using lvmetad in my use case. I don't have a LVM that spans multiple spindles. Enabling it adds a risk that your boot may be screwed. It certainly has been the case with me, so I have it disabled.

Here is a typical use-case where LVM is a good idea: Need for mirroring: Site -- Stock broker firm, national corporate office Host use -- order entry system (buy, sell, etc.) Host configuration: 2 16-cpu Sequent hosts running dynix in a cluster as shown below: +-------+ +---------+ +--------+ | =============== SCSI =============== | | Host1 =============== DISK =============== Host 2 | | =============== CABINET =============== | +-------+ SCSI Cables +---------+ SCSI cables +--------+ Host database Host with OS disks with OS on local on local disks disks (mirrored) (mirrored) LVM justification 1. Database is mirrored for redundancy (fault tolerance) 2. THIRD mirror for backup purposes. To minimize the amount of time the database is offline, at market closing, the database would be shutdown for a short period of time, during which the third mirror would be broken off. The database tables were stored in the vendor's optimized format, and backups could be made by referencing the partition name (/dev/sc[controller]d[disk]p[partition] or something like that). Backups done as follows: 1. database shutdown 2. 3rd mirrors of partitions disassociated from 1st & 2nd mirrors 3. database restarted 4. OS & local disks backed up [Level 0 on Saturday] 5. 3rd mirror used as data source for database backup 6. backup tape images compared to 3rd-mirror images for verification of flawless backup. 7. Once backup is verified, reassociate 3rd mirror with 1st & 2nd mirrors. Why the LVM? Because steps 5 & 6 would take several hours. By using the 3rd mirror, this gave us up to 24 hours to complete a backup, because the database could still be used during business hours. Another use-case that justifies LVM: General Motors Tech Center, High Performance Computing Group Supercomputers running high-end analysis & engineering apps, such as fine-grained finite-element analysis of collision scenarios. These computer are expensive to even OWN -- just sitting on the floor, they depreciate at a rate of many dollars/day. Hosts contain several dozen CPUs.... most jobs are disk I/O bound. Solution -- disk striping, with 3 disks per stripe. No mirroring -- loss of data is not a catastrophic loss, and the money is better spent on striping (speed) than mirroring (security). RAID 5 and RAID 6 are good for online medium-term archiving (i.e. one step above tape archives)... data-loss is expensive, so you want to protect it, but the slow write speed (due to recomputing the check-sums) is acceptable, so mirroring is not needed.

http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/redp0107.html -- STATUS QUO is Latin for "the mess we're in."

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

jdd wrote:

Le 07/01/2015 17:41, Joe Zappa a écrit :

if somebody could give me let alone a small part of such system, I would be pretty excited :-)

Yeah. But corporations don't think in such ways. Computers are just another tool, and automakers want results as quickly as they can afford to pay for. You or I would keep a 96-CPU system for 15 years, or more, if we could keep it running. In the the business sector in the U.S., it's obsolete fully depreciated in 7 years, and will be replaced at that time.

but, you know, people do (when they think it's obsolete for them)... but I don't want it.

I have for example somewhere a scsi bi-xeon two hard raid nec server (two hot swap alims...) and I played with it sometime, but

* extremely power hunger * 18 kg * 16" large, twice that long (only 10 high)

as loud as a grass cutter...

funny, but not for me.

thanks jdd

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org