| 1 |
Norberto and Josh: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Thank you for the suggestion. It's on the back burner. I have the space to |
| 4 |
experiment with it now. I have balked for the time being on basis of, |
| 5 |
partly, my need to be able to swap drives in and out, and have it clear in |
| 6 |
mind which partitions belong to what. Also my main drive is a 10000 RPM |
| 7 |
faster drive, and I'd like to keep the partitions or directories that are |
| 8 |
mainly for storage separated. I really do notice a difference in the |
| 9 |
performance of the drive. this is somewhat of a conundrum: how to keep the |
| 10 |
current projects focused on the faster drive. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Interestingly (to me) while I carefully planned for swap on the faster |
| 13 |
drive, since I moved to 2GB of RAM, I think I've only touched swap two or |
| 14 |
three times, and then only passingly! |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I definitely wouldn't want to put / into LVM. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If I do LVM it will be the easy way, the most clearcut way. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Alan |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Norberto Bensa <nbensa@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Quoting Josh Cepek <josh.cepek@×××.net>: |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Personally I'd suggest using LVM for this |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan Davis |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
"It's never a matter of liking or disliking ..." |
| 36 |
---Santa Ynez Chumash Medicine Man |
Archives