On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 14:44, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:12:17PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > If you're thinking of running 2.6, I'd stay away from LVM for now. LVM2
> > isn't quite finished yet - for example, snapshot support only just went
> > in to the mainline kernel recently, and pvresize doesn't work yet. On
> > 2.4, though, LVM1 is rock solid and hard to pass up for any server.
>
> If you have to choose between 2.6/no-LVM and 2.4/LVM then which do you
> choose?
I've actually taken #3 - 2.6/LVM2 - but only because I had to upgrade a
2.4/LVM machine to 2.6 to solve some severe disk scheduling problems. I
wouldn't recommend it just yet.
Normally, I'd pick 2.4/LVM1, though I'd have to seriously consider
2.4/LVM2 (LVM2 is a lot more polished on 2.4) because of the simplified
upgrade to 2.6.
I suppose if your storage is simple enough, non-LVM on 2.6 would be
OK... but you still lose the snapshot capability and it becomes much
harder to hot-expand filesystems. Unless you have a really pressing
reason to go for 2.6, I'd use 2.4 + LVM or 2.4 + LVM2.
--
Craig Ringer
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -
digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,
unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
_____________________________________________________________________
Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss
For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net
