On Sunday 07 October 2007, Philip Webb wrote: > Does anyone have advice based on experience using LVM ? > I sb partitioning a new 320 GB hard drive soon for a simple desktop box. > That is 8 times the size of the HDD in my present machine, > which I haven't exhausted by any means. LVM seems more professional > & allows flexibility for unforeseen storage needs, > but it adds a layer of complexity & potential problems arising therefrom. > I wonder whether LVM slows down disk access > & whether there's a disaster lurking unseen if anything goes wrong with > LVM: a bad package update, a damaged config file or file storing LVM's > layout would seem to risk losing everything on the HDD & require > re-installation.
I'm using LVM for all my (linux-)computers (Servers, Desktops and Notebooks). The only filesystems not on LVM are / and /boot (I know that I can put / on a LVOL as well but I don't like to use initrd if I can avoid it). This is for example how my desktop looks like: /dev/hde1 /boot 30MB /dev/hde2 swap 4GB /dev/hde3 / 500MB /dev/hde4 LVM-vg00 /dev/vg00/lvol01 /usr 4GB /dev/vg00/lvol02 /var 10GB /dev/vg00/lvol03 /opt 2GB /dev/vg00/lvol04 /home/dan 4GB /dev/vg00/lvol05 /home/ulle 4GB /dev/vg00/lvol06 /tmp 1GB /dev/vg00/lvol07 /var/vmware/WinXP 28GB /dev/vg00/lvol08 /usr/portage 3GB The main reason for me for using LVM is that I can easily extend a filesystem on the fly or add a new one if necessary. -- Dan Johansson, <http://www.dmj.nu> *************************************************** This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons! ***************************************************
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
