> > I didn't say that LVMs are inherently risky or unreliable. > By all means build and use LVMs to hold your application > data and code. Just don't put the root Linux file system > (the one Linux needs to boot from...) in an LVM. It makes > recovery of a sick penguin in a z/VM environment must > easier. > > > And expansion of a root filesystem much harder. As pointed out, RedHat defaults to an LVM root - so it's harder to brush it aside as just a bad idea.
I think there are pros and cons - enough on both sides that I wouldn't flat out tell someone "don't do it".. Recovery is less easy, yes, but certainly possible - you just have more than one DASD to consider. I think this is one of those topics that is endlessly debatable, so it's best just to list the pros and cons (and not just the cons) and leave it to the implementer to decide why they may or may not want to use LVM for root. I say there are good reasons to do it, so it should be something that is carefully considered. My best advice to the original appender is to try it.. and understand first-hand the differences. Fill up root and see if it's easier to add DASD to an LVM or move the whole fileystem to another DASD. Then - make your system unbootable (put an error in your /etc/fstab or zipl.conf or something) .. and then try and recover it with both an LVM and non-LVM root. These are the kinds of pros and cons you have to weigh yourself.. Scott Rohling ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
