| 1 |
On Dec 20, 2007 10:31 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Unlike commonly perceived wisdom I don't think that LVM is a panacea for all |
| 3 |
> ills, or a necessity as such. It is however bloody convenient, especially on |
| 4 |
> a growing fs. A server that is not expected to change much in size, probably |
| 5 |
> does not need it. On the other hand some servers (file, mail, news servers) |
| 6 |
> are bound to continue to accumulate data and their fs will increase in time. |
| 7 |
> I would argue that the former type of server can happily live in a few primary |
| 8 |
> partitions + 1 extended with a number of logical partitions, if you are going |
| 9 |
> for a multi-partitioned scheme, while the latter type of server will greatly |
| 10 |
> benefit from LVM. Of course, if hard drive redundancy is necessary, then I |
| 11 |
> can't see how you could live without LVM + RAID. |
| 12 |
|
| 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 |
Gal' |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives