Search
30 results for “lvm”
Search results
Linux Storage & LVM
How physical volumes, volume groups, and logical volumes let LVM pool multiple disks and resize storage without repartitioning, and what mount and /etc/fstab actually do to attach a filesystem to the directory tree.
How do a physical volume, a volume group, and a logical volume relate to each other in LVM?
A physical volume (PV) is an actual disk or partition brought under LVM's management. A volume group (VG) pools one or more physical volumes into a single unit of storage capacity, the VG's total size is the combined size of every PV in it. A logical volume (LV) is a virtual block device carved out of a VG's available space, and the Device Mapper layer in the kernel is what actually maps each block of an LV to blocks on one or more of the VG's underlying PVs. This is what makes LVM flexible in a way a plain partition isn't: an LV can be resized, or a VG can absorb another disk as a new PV, without the rigid, fixed boundaries a traditional partition table imposes.
Why would you add a second disk to an existing volume group instead of just creating a new, separate filesystem on it?
Adding a disk as a new physical volume to an existing volume group extends that VG's total capacity, which lets an existing logical volume (and the filesystem on it) be grown into the new space without unmounting it, moving data, or changing the mount point the rest of the system already depends on. Creating a second, separate filesystem on the new disk instead means the original filesystem is still capacity-constrained by its original disk, and anything needing more room has to be manually split or migrated across two independent mount points rather than one that simply grew.
What is the difference between running "mount" once from the command line and adding an entry to /etc/fstab?
A manual `mount` command attaches a filesystem to the directory tree for the current running session only, it does not survive a reboot, the system has no record of it having ever happened. An `/etc/fstab` entry is the persistent, declarative definition of what should be mounted where and with what options, and it's what the boot process (and `mount -a`) reads to reconstruct every expected mount automatically. A filesystem mounted manually but never added to fstab is the classic cause of "it worked, then disappeared after a reboot," and works precisely because it was set up as a one-time action, not a declared, persistent one.
What is the difference between journald's "volatile", "persistent", and "auto" storage modes, and which one is the default?
"Volatile" keeps the journal only in `/run/log/journal`, which is memory-backed and wiped on every reboot, nothing survives a restart. "Persistent" writes to `/var/log/journal` on disk, so entries survive reboots (falling back to volatile only during very early boot or if the disk is unavailable). "Auto" is the actual default, and it behaves like "persistent" only if `/var/log/journal` already exists, otherwise it behaves like "volatile", so whether logs survive a reboot on a given system depends entirely on whether that directory happens to have been created, not on any setting an administrator consciously chose.
During a live incident, what does journalctl -f -u myservice -p err do, and why combine those specific options?
`-f` follows the journal in real time, printing new entries as they're appended, `-u myservice` scopes that stream to just the one unit under investigation, and `-p err` filters to only entries at the "err" priority or more severe (more important), suppressing informational noise. Combined, this gives a live, scoped, severity-filtered view of exactly one service's serious problems as they happen, rather than watching an unfiltered firehose of every unit's routine log output and trying to manually spot the relevant failure.
What is an "LLM-graded" eval, and when would you reach for it instead of exact-match or similarity-based grading?
An LLM-graded eval uses a separate model call to judge a subjective quality of the output, tone, empathy, professionalism, on a numeric scale or binary classification, rather than checking it against one fixed correct answer. Exact-match grading only works when there's one right answer (a category label); similarity-based grading (cosine similarity between embeddings) works when wording can vary but meaning should match a reference. LLM-graded evals are the right tool specifically for qualities that are inherently subjective and hard to define with a fixed rule or reference string, at the cost of being noisier and more expensive to run than a simple string comparison.
What does "at-least-once delivery" actually guarantee, and what does it not guarantee, and why does that mean a consumer must be idempotent?
At-least-once delivery guarantees a message will eventually be delivered and processed at least one time, it does not guarantee exactly one delivery, the same message can legitimately be delivered and processed more than once, for example if a consumer's deletion request is lost after it already finished processing, or a visibility timeout expires just as processing completes. Because duplicate delivery is a normal, expected outcome of this model rather than a rare edge case, a consumer has to be written so that processing the same message twice produces the same end result as processing it once (an idempotent operation), rather than assuming the queue itself will prevent duplicates.
PostgreSQL vs MySQL
How PostgreSQL and MySQL actually differ in data types, concurrency, indexing, and replication, and which one fits which workload.
What is an Azure VM Scale Set, and how does it differ from manually managing a group of VMs?
A VM Scale Set manages a group of identical, load-balanced VMs as a single logical unit, with built-in autoscaling based on metrics (CPU, custom metrics) and automated instance replacement on failure. Manually managing individual VMs means each scaling or patching action has to be repeated per instance, with no built-in mechanism to keep the fleet at a consistent size or to react automatically to load. Scale Sets are the IaaS-level building block that makes "run N identical VMs that scale with load" a supported, declarative configuration instead of a hand-rolled script.
What does AKS (Azure Kubernetes Service) manage for you compared to running Kubernetes yourself on VMs?
AKS manages the Kubernetes control plane (API server, etcd, scheduler) at no direct cost for the control plane itself; you only pay for the worker nodes, which still run as VMs you have some visibility into but don't have to manually install or upgrade Kubernetes onto. Running Kubernetes yourself on plain VMs means standing up and maintaining the entire control plane, including its high availability and upgrade process, which is a substantial and ongoing operational burden. AKS trades some control-plane visibility for removing that burden, which is why it's the default choice for running Kubernetes on Azure unless there's a specific reason to self-manage.
How to Build a Production-Ready Auto-Scaling Azure Web App with Modular Terraform (VMSS, Load Balancer & NAT Gateway)
From Basic Terraform to Production IaC: Building an Auto-Scaling Azure Web App with Modular Terraform.
Building Golden Images with Azure Compute Gallery: Custom VM Image Creation & Deployment (Hands-On Lab)
A step-by-step Azure lab for creating, versioning, and deploying standardized VM images at scale.
Cloud Service Models
What actually distinguishes IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS, why the boundary is "who manages what," and how the shared responsibility model determines what you're on the hook for at each layer.
What is the difference between CloudTrail management events and data events, and why does it matter?
Management events record control-plane operations, creating a role, launching an instance, changing a security group, and every CloudTrail trail logs these by default. Data events record data-plane operations on the resources themselves, an individual S3 GetObject or Lambda Invoke call, and are not logged by default; they have to be explicitly enabled per resource and typically cost extra given their much higher volume. This matters because an investigation into "who read this specific S3 object" will come up completely empty if only the default management events were ever being logged, a genuinely common gap discovered only during an actual incident.
What is the difference between durability and availability in S3, and why does it matter when picking a storage class?
Durability is the probability that a stored object is not lost over a year, and S3 Standard, Standard-IA, and every Glacier class are all designed for the same 99.999999999% (11 nines) durability. Availability is how often the object can actually be successfully retrieved on demand, and that number does vary by class, 99.99% for Standard down to 99.5% for One Zone-IA. It matters because a cheaper class is not automatically a less durable one, S3 One Zone-IA is exactly as durable as Standard-IA per object, but it is not resilient to the loss of its single Availability Zone at all, since it isn't replicated across multiple zones the way every multi-AZ class is.
When would you choose Azure App Service over a Virtual Machine for hosting a web application?
App Service is a fully managed PaaS; it handles OS patching, runtime installation, and built-in scaling and deployment slots, so you only manage application code and configuration. A Virtual Machine is IaaS, full control over the OS and everything installed on it, but you own patching, scaling configuration, and availability yourself. Choose App Service when the workload is a standard web app/API in a supported runtime and the team wants to minimize operational burden; choose a VM when you need OS-level control, unsupported runtimes/dependencies, or specific compliance requirements that mandate managing the host directly.
Why should variables almost always be quoted, e.g. `"$name"` instead of `$name`?
An unquoted variable expansion undergoes word-splitting (on whitespace) and globbing (on `*`, `?`, etc.) before the command sees it, so a value containing a space or a shell metacharacter silently becomes multiple arguments or an unintended file-glob expansion instead of one literal string. Quoting (`"$name"`) suppresses both, so the variable's value is always passed through as exactly one argument, which is why nearly every Bash style guide treats an unquoted variable expansion as a latent bug rather than a style preference.
Why does an O(n log n) sort beat an O(n^2) sort for large inputs, even if the O(n^2) one is faster on small inputs?
Constant factors can make an O(n^2) algorithm faster for small n, Big O only describes the asymptotic trend, not the exact runtime. But growth rates diverge fast: at n = 1,000,000, n log n is about 20 million operations while n^2 is a trillion. Past a crossover point the asymptotically better algorithm always wins, which is why production sort implementations (like Timsort) still often special-case small arrays with a simpler O(n^2) sort under the hood.
What does the principle of least privilege mean in practice, and why is it hard to maintain over time?
Least privilege means granting an identity only the specific permissions it needs to do its job, nothing broader "to be safe" or "to save time." It's hard to maintain because permissions tend to accumulate, someone gets a broad role to unblock a one-time task and it's never revoked, or a service starts with wildcard permissions during initial development and nobody narrows them before shipping. Maintaining least privilege requires ongoing review (access audits, unused-permission detection), not just a careful initial setup, because the natural drift over time is always toward more access, not less.
Why does a real ring hash implementation give each host many positions on the ring instead of just one, and what problem would a single position per host cause?
A host thrown onto the ring at just one point can end up, purely by chance, owning a disproportionately large or small arc of the ring if the hash values happen to land unevenly, since with few points there's no averaging effect smoothing out the randomness. Assigning each host many positions on the ring, scaled by that host's intended weight, so a double-weight host gets roughly twice as many ring entries as a single-weight one, averages out that randomness across many smaller arcs per host, producing a much more even overall traffic distribution than a single coin-flip-like placement per host would.
Why does using a monotonically increasing field (a sequential ID, a timestamp) as a shard key concentrate all new writes onto one shard, even with range-based sharding across many shards?
With range-based sharding, chunks are assigned contiguous ranges of shard-key values, and a monotonically increasing key means every new document's value is higher than every previously inserted one, so all new inserts land in whatever chunk currently owns the highest range, which lives on one specific shard. Every other shard, holding older, lower-valued ranges, receives none of the new write traffic at all, the exact "hot shard" problem, all insert load concentrated on a single shard regardless of how many total shards the cluster has.
What problem does policy-as-code solve that a manual infrastructure change review does not?
A manual review depends on a human noticing a specific misconfiguration, an open security group, an unencrypted storage bucket, in a plan diff that may span hundreds of resources, and that scrutiny has to be repeated consistently by every reviewer on every change. Policy-as-code encodes the same rule once as executable logic and runs it automatically against every plan, so an overly permissive security group is caught the same way on the hundredth change as the first, without depending on which reviewer happened to be paying attention that day.
Why does wrapping several statements in `BEGIN`/`COMMIT` matter, even for a multi-step operation that's logically one action?
Without an explicit transaction, PostgreSQL commits each statement independently the moment it succeeds; if a multi-step operation (debit one account, credit another) fails halfway through, the database is left in an inconsistent, partially-applied state with no way to undo the completed step. Wrapping the statements in `BEGIN`/`COMMIT` groups them so they can be committed or rolled back together, but that alone isn't automatic protection against every failure mode: PostgreSQL only aborts a transaction on its own when a statement raises an actual SQL error, an `UPDATE` that runs successfully but matches zero rows (a mistyped account id, for instance) is not an error at all, and would otherwise be committed as if the transfer had actually happened. Making the transaction genuinely safe means checking that each `UPDATE` affected exactly the one row expected and issuing an explicit `ROLLBACK` if either check fails, only issuing `COMMIT` once both checks pass.
What does putting an instruction in the system prompt actually change versus putting the same instruction in the first user message?
A system prompt sets standing context and role for the entire conversation, "you are a helpful coding assistant specializing in Python," and that framing persists and shapes tone and behavior across every subsequent turn without needing to be repeated. The same sentence placed in a user message is treated as part of the conversational exchange itself, mixed in with whatever else that turn asks for, rather than as a persistent behavioral frame the model treats as instruction-level context throughout the session. Even a single well-chosen sentence in the system prompt measurably changes tone and focus, which is why role-setting belongs there rather than being re-stated per turn.
Why is using a mutable object (like a list) as a default argument value a common bug in Python?
Default argument values are evaluated exactly once, when the function is defined, not on every call, so a mutable default like `def f(items=[])` creates one list object that is shared across every call that doesn't explicitly pass its own `items`. Appending to it in one call leaves those items present the next time the function is called with the default, which looks like inexplicable state leaking between unrelated calls. The fix is defaulting to `None` and creating a new list inside the function body when `items is None`, so every call that needs the default gets its own fresh object.
Why does installing packages globally (outside a virtual environment) cause problems across multiple projects?
A global Python installation has exactly one set of installed package versions shared by everything that uses it. Two projects needing different, incompatible versions of the same package (one needs `requests==2.28`, another needs `requests==2.31` for a bug fix it depends on) cannot both be satisfied globally, installing one breaks the other. A virtual environment gives each project its own isolated package set, so version requirements never conflict across projects, and a project's dependencies are fully reproducible independent of whatever else happens to be installed globally.
Given the risk of hitting a recursion limit, when would you rewrite a recursive algorithm iteratively, and what does that actually trade away?
Rewrite iteratively when the recursion depth scales with input size in a way that could plausibly exceed the platform's real stack capacity, deep tree traversals, recursive descent over large or adversarial inputs, anything where "how deep" isn't bounded by a small constant. The trade is code clarity: many recursive algorithms (tree traversal, divide-and-conquer, backtracking) read far more naturally as recursion, mirroring the problem's own recursive structure, and converting them to an explicit-stack iterative version, while removing the depth risk entirely, usually costs some of that direct correspondence between code and problem structure.
Why does a chunk like "The company's revenue grew by 3% over the previous quarter" cause a retrieval failure even if it's embedded correctly?
That sentence is only meaningful with context the isolated chunk doesn't carry, which company, which quarter, information that likely lived in a heading or preceding paragraph that didn't survive the chunking boundary. Embedded on its own, the chunk's vector represents a generic, context-free statement about revenue growth, which means it won't be retrieved reliably for a query about "ACME Corp Q2 2023 earnings" even though it's exactly the right chunk, because nothing in its embedding actually encodes that it's about ACME Corp or Q2 2023 at all.
What does contextual retrieval actually change about the chunking process, and what measurable difference did it make?
Instead of embedding each chunk as extracted, contextual retrieval prepends a short, chunk-specific explanatory context before embedding it, turning "The company's revenue grew by 3%..." into something like "This chunk is from an SEC filing on ACME Corp's performance in Q2 2023; the company's revenue grew by 3%...", generated automatically per chunk rather than written by hand. In Anthropic's published results, this reduced retrieval failures by 49%, and combining it with reranking (a second relevance-scoring pass over retrieved candidates) reduced failures by 67%, a substantial, measured improvement from addressing the isolated-chunk context problem directly rather than only tuning the embedding model or retrieval algorithm.