Re: LVM root?
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 09:15:33AM -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Right, but I'm trying to decide if I should put / on LVM.
> To summarize what I've heard so far:
> Advantage: Able to resize.
Which is a negligible advantage. How often is the need for this? Disk
space for / varies between 100Mb to 500Mb on my machines. Instal
with a generous 2Gb for / only and you "never" need to worry about it
> - Grub doesn't support LVM so need /boot on a regular
> - Difficult or impossible to boot up a rescue CD and
> rescue a corrupted root fs.
> Would there be any disadvantage to this?
/ is to valuable to lose. IMHO a single disk setup is a no go.
Just to add my 2cents:
new machines get (multiple (identical) disks with) 2 partitions on them:
1 - a small 2Gb (type fd)
2 - the rest (type fd)
The small partitions are combined in a md0 array raid1, the others in
whatever you like (most likely 5, 1 otherwise) md1 array.
/dev/md0 will be used for /.
/dev/md1 will be a pv for lvm.
This adds redundancy, plus any of the partition that make up the raid1
for / can be mounted on its own (but writing to one will break the
array). Adding a disk creates an other copy of /, and with the newer
kernels a raid5 array can be expanded, so it can be used by the LVM.
But this still creates a static sized /, which IMHO is no problem IF the
initial size is big enough.
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
- Re: LVM root?
- From: Lennart Sorensen <email@example.com>