"OT - I get a ironic chuckle out of the people that "NEED" the 100Mb wireless routers because their Internet is slow on their cable modem (5Mb down)." I've heard this too! :-P But, I guess in perspective, you're right about the performance versus bandwidth. I guess I was looking at it from a spam/virus perspective. It seems the verdict is that if you are setting up for what is to be a very static load with near static storage needs, just use straight partitioning. Use LVM if you are trying to stay with a budget system that might have to grow in the near future. >From that point of view, Jake, what format method does the QMT ISO disk use (the one based on the newer CentOS 5)? I saw it in a video, but didn't take notice of whether it used LVM (usually a default in CentOS) or not. Thanks, Pat.
________________________________ From: Jake Vickers [mailto:j...@qmailtoaster.com] Sent: 2009-09-25 07:38 To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Advantage/Disadvantage ...?? Patrick Ring wrote: So far between the couple of answer I've got here, and the research I had been doing. The concensus is about the same. ...It seems people who have been around Linux for a while prefer the straight partitioning methods. I would personally think that LVM would put a slight performance load on the server as well which could hinder the sometimes very disk intensive nature of QmailToaster and its packages. Probably a very true statement (about people who have been around Linux a while). LVM does incur a write delay depending on hardware (read: most hardware) but provides a speed boost on reads, like RAID 0 would since you're reading from multiple drives at the same time. For your average network connection, this is not noticed in any form. There is a big difference in the speed of network connections (mega BITS) compared to a physical drive (mega BYTES). OT - I get a ironic chuckle out of the people that "NEED" the 100Mb wireless routers because their Internet is slow on their cable modem (5Mb down).
