On Dec 20, 2007 10:31 PM, Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unlike commonly perceived wisdom I don't think that LVM is a panacea for all > ills, or a necessity as such. It is however bloody convenient, especially on > a growing fs. A server that is not expected to change much in size, probably > does not need it. On the other hand some servers (file, mail, news servers) > are bound to continue to accumulate data and their fs will increase in time. > I would argue that the former type of server can happily live in a few primary > partitions + 1 extended with a number of logical partitions, if you are going > for a multi-partitioned scheme, while the latter type of server will greatly > benefit from LVM. Of course, if hard drive redundancy is necessary, then I > can't see how you could live without LVM + RAID.
I understand you on "LVM is not a must for very stable servers", but since I can't see any good reason not to use LVM, I see no reason to limit your abilities to extended partitions. We have the opportunity to be more flexible with LVM, why should we not get it ? To loose the ability to extend a partition by adding a new HD without any pain ? I mean, if you don't know how to use it, I understand that you may skip installing a LVM system, but when you did it once, I see no reason to install your new systems without. So, I am interested in your advice about LVM is not the universal solution for partitions management, since I am sure I have something to learn from you experience. Gal' -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
