On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 01:12:54PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:06:38AM -0400, E0x wrote: > > > >>i asking it because i was thinking in use lvm in desktop setup , and i can > >>live with a harddisk lose and the data on it , but not with all data lost > > > > > >for a desktop setup, using lvm over several small disks is essentially > >the same thing as using one large disk with several partitions on > >it. If one of the disks fail, you probably lose it all. That said, it > >can still be advantageous to use lvm in this context because of the > >flexibility down the road -- if you need to adjust the sizes of your > >partitions, you can do so easily. > > > >there is no other advantage and in fact there may be disadvantages > >because the additional number of disks increases the odds of > >encountering a failure. > > Frankly, this "advantage" is pretty weak, IMO. So far, I see no real > need for it. I totally agree... very weak advantage. I suppose that there are those who constantly tweak > their systems. The advantage usually touted is that one can easily > add new discs. But I'd rather have one large disc than several small > ones, anyway. I suppose one who constantly installed one OS after > another and wanted ease of "repartitioning" could use it. So far, > I see no advantage for normal users. I am astounded that some distros > use LVM as the default. that is astounding. talk about adding unneeded complexity (because it does...). Who does that as the default? So, though its a weak advantage, it can be useful. I have, several times now, had to tweak some partitions because they were too big/too small etc. LVM would have been nice. For example, I've got tons of extra room in my /home partition and was thinking of trying the hurd. would be nice to just tweak it with lvm and move ahead (does hurd support lvm yet?). A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature