| 1 |
Alan E. Davis wrote: |
| 2 |
> Norberto and Josh: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Thank you for the suggestion. It's on the back burner. I have the |
| 5 |
> space to experiment with it now. I have balked for the time being on |
| 6 |
> basis of, partly, my need to be able to swap drives in and out, and |
| 7 |
> have it clear in mind which partitions belong to what. Also my main |
| 8 |
> drive is a 10000 RPM faster drive, and I'd like to keep the partitions |
| 9 |
> or directories that are mainly for storage separated. I really do |
| 10 |
> notice a difference in the performance of the drive. this is somewhat |
| 11 |
> of a conundrum: how to keep the current projects focused on the faster |
| 12 |
> drive. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Interestingly (to me) while I carefully planned for swap on the faster |
| 15 |
> drive, since I moved to 2GB of RAM, I think I've only touched swap two |
| 16 |
> or three times, and then only passingly! |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I definitely wouldn't want to put / into LVM. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> If I do LVM it will be the easy way, the most clearcut way. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
As one that's used LVM and other similar software in both Windows and |
| 23 |
the BSDs, be sure you understand the risk involved. While the idea of |
| 24 |
"one big drive" sounds appealing (which is why I used it), lose one |
| 25 |
drive and you lose everything in the LV unless you are mirroring, using |
| 26 |
parity, or some combination of both. I have been bit by this time and |
| 27 |
time again and have finally decided that LVM is not worth the hassle for |
| 28 |
me any longer, especially since a 1 TB drive can be found easily for |
| 29 |
less than $200 (US). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Anyway, I'm not knocking those who use LVM. Just understand the risk. :) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Cheers, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Drew |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Be a Great Magician! |
| 39 |
Visit The Alchemist's Warehouse |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
http://www.alchemistswarehouse.com |
Archives