LVM2 And Vim

MoistGod · 2010-04-07 13:45:34

I have two quick questions:

1. I've looked through the LVM2 page on the wiki and I want to give it a try, for the experience if nothing else, but I am curious if there is any performance hit when using LVM2. Is it exactly the same as using regular partitions?

2. I really don't like the Vi in Base. If I skip Vi during the install and then later install Vim from Extra, will Pacman create a Vi to Vim link for me, or will I need to do that myself?

MoistGod · 2010-04-07 13:46:39

By the way, I love that Arch provides USB install images. I wish more free OSes did that.

TaylanUB · 2010-04-07 14:00:50

2. From what i see what's in the Vim package, it will never symlink vi to itself. You'll need to do that yourself.
By the way, what you call "the Vi in Base" is simply the original vi.

1. Sorry, i know nothing about LVM2.

MoistGod · 2010-04-07 14:06:31

Thanks. I occurs to me now, after I was stupid enough to ask the question, that I could simply create an alias in my ~/.bashrc so that calling Vi will call Vim. That will probably be the easiest way to go.

Profjim · 2010-04-07 19:00:18

TaylanUB wrote:

2. From what i see what's in the Vim package, it will never symlink vi to itself. You'll need to do that yourself.

That's right.

In practice, you probably won't ever even need an alias, unless your "m" key is broken. Just

export VISUAL=vim EDITOR=vim

in your ~/.bashrc. Or make an alias

By the way, what you call "the Vi in Base" is simply the original vi.

That's not right, it's nvi, which is a recent re-implementation.

Re LVM2: whether benchmarks reveal any performance difference I don't know. But in practical terms, I can say you're not going to notice anything.

Last edited by Profjim (2010-04-07 19:02:32)

Andrwe · 2010-04-07 20:21:08

To your 1. question:
LVM isn't the same as "partitions". "Partitions" are static because they are set on the "disk" directly while LVM is a layer which replaces partitions and provide methods to have "semi-dynamic" partitions on your "disk".
With semi-dynamic I mean that you can't change the size of your partitions without suiting some requirements.
E.g. the filesystem you are using has to support on-the-fly-resizing like ext3/4 and jfs for example do.
If your system suits the needs LVM provides a lot more than simple partitions you can as you may already read resize the volumes, take snapshots of your volumes, restore snapshots (isn't very easy to accomplish if you use kernel < 2.6.33 AFAIK with kernel 2.6.33 restoring can be done while the real system is running) and easily manage teh volumes like deleting or creating.
Like Profjim I also haven't experienced any loss of performance and I'm using LVM since some time (about 2 years) already.

Last edited by Andrwe (2010-04-07 20:21:37)

TaylanUB · 2010-04-07 21:10:18

Profjim wrote:

By the way, what you call "the Vi in Base" is simply the original vi.
That's not right, it's nvi, which is a recent re-implementation.

Well, the package description claims: "The original ex/vi text editor."
There's no word on nvi in any documentation (basically man pages and license file).
The URL in `pacman -Qi vi` points to: http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/

But this is a rather trivial matter i guess.

aeosynth · 2010-04-07 23:00:17

MoistGod wrote:

I occurs to me now, after I was stupid enough to ask the question, that I could simply create an alias in my ~/.bashrc so that calling Vi will call Vim. That will probably be the easiest way to go.

I'd recommend making an actualy symlink, with `sudo ln -s /usr/bin/vim /usr/bin/vi`. That way, vi will point to vim even when your .bashrc isn't read (for example, when running as root).

chpln · 2010-04-07 23:04:55

I've recently switched to LVM2 and have noticed no loss in performance.

I believe in theory there is an overhead cost to using LVM and repeated resizing of partitions will likely increase disk access times marginally. However, I doubt it will amount to anything noticable.

Profjim · 2010-04-07 23:26:28

TaylanUB wrote:

Profjim wrote:
By the way, what you call "the Vi in Base" is simply the original vi.
That's not right, it's nvi, which is a recent re-implementation.
Well, the package description claims: "The original ex/vi text editor."
There's no word on nvi in any documentation (basically man pages and license file).
The URL in `pacman -Qi vi` points to: http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/
But this is a rather trivial matter i guess.

Huh, you're right that it's not a big deal and also right about the facts. I don't know where I picked up the belief that it was nvi. Maybe it used to be (after being a lightweight build of vim)? Or maybe I'm just misremembering something I read somewhere on the internets.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-04-07 13:45:34

LVM2 And Vim

#2 2010-04-07 13:46:39

Re: LVM2 And Vim

#3 2010-04-07 14:00:50

Re: LVM2 And Vim

#4 2010-04-07 14:06:31

Re: LVM2 And Vim

#5 2010-04-07 19:00:18

Re: LVM2 And Vim

#6 2010-04-07 20:21:08

Re: LVM2 And Vim

#7 2010-04-07 21:10:18

Re: LVM2 And Vim

#8 2010-04-07 23:00:17

Re: LVM2 And Vim

#9 2010-04-07 23:04:55

Re: LVM2 And Vim

#10 2010-04-07 23:26:28

Re: LVM2 And Vim

Board footer