| 1 |
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:11:30 +0200, meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> A question to LVM: As much as I know, LVM combines several partition |
| 4 |
> to one big partition, and if one partition fails, at least other |
| 5 |
> others of that volume are damaged, too. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
It can be used that way, but you have only one disk, so you would create |
| 8 |
a single physical volume from a large partition on that disk and then use |
| 9 |
LVM to create individual logical volumes within it. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> What is the advantage of using LVM and several small partitions |
| 12 |
> instead of one in the size of the sum of the others and not using |
| 13 |
> LVM? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Flexibility and convenience. No single filesystem is right for all of |
| 16 |
your needs, with LVM you can use XFS where it is best suited and |
| 17 |
something else elsewhere, and you can resize and reorganise your volumes |
| 18 |
without needing to repartition the drive. I have a few hundred GB unused |
| 19 |
on my volume group, so I can add volumes or resize existing ones in |
| 20 |
seconds with minimal effort and no downtime. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Just one note of caution, XFS filesystems cannot be shrunk, although they |
| 23 |
are easy to grow, so make any XFS volumes no larger than your current |
| 24 |
needs. That advice applies to all your volumes, because growing is easier |
| 25 |
and faster than shrinking, but doubly so to XFS. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot. |
Archives