| 1 |
Galevsky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Dec 20, 2007 10:31 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Unlike commonly perceived wisdom I don't think that LVM is a panacea for all |
| 4 |
>> ills, or a necessity as such. It is however bloody convenient, especially on |
| 5 |
>> a growing fs. A server that is not expected to change much in size, probably |
| 6 |
>> does not need it. On the other hand some servers (file, mail, news servers) |
| 7 |
>> are bound to continue to accumulate data and their fs will increase in time. |
| 8 |
>> I would argue that the former type of server can happily live in a few primary |
| 9 |
>> partitions + 1 extended with a number of logical partitions, if you are going |
| 10 |
>> for a multi-partitioned scheme, while the latter type of server will greatly |
| 11 |
>> benefit from LVM. Of course, if hard drive redundancy is necessary, then I |
| 12 |
>> can't see how you could live without LVM + RAID. |
| 13 |
> I understand you on "LVM is not a must for very stable servers", but |
| 14 |
> since I can't see any good reason not to use LVM, I see no reason to |
| 15 |
> limit your abilities to extended partitions. We have the opportunity |
| 16 |
> to be more flexible with LVM, why should we not get it ? To loose the |
| 17 |
> ability to extend a partition by adding a new HD without any pain ? I |
| 18 |
> mean, if you don't know how to use it, I understand that you may skip |
| 19 |
> installing a LVM system, but when you did it once, I see no reason to |
| 20 |
> install your new systems without. So, I am interested in your advice |
| 21 |
> about LVM is not the universal solution for partitions management, |
| 22 |
> since I am sure I have something to learn from you experience. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Agreed. As I said in another e-mail on the list, I use to use extended |
| 25 |
partitions - at one point I had about 10 or so partitions on a single |
| 26 |
drive (3 primary, the rest from an extended partition). This worked well |
| 27 |
under Windows 9x, but was a pain after moving to Linux. It wasn't that I |
| 28 |
had mis-scoped the size of the data for those partitions, just that my |
| 29 |
needs changed (mainly user related needs, not system related needs), and |
| 30 |
managing extended partitions is a lot of work. I very much understand |
| 31 |
LVM and what would do for me, and would very much like to hear why |
| 32 |
simple extended partitions would be better for any scenario but the most |
| 33 |
limited of scenarios where LVM was just not possible (e.g. the system |
| 34 |
could not run a kernel that supported LVM; or RAM on the system was too |
| 35 |
limited to support running LVM; etc.)...I'm not sure I agree that they |
| 36 |
would be. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Ben |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives