Re: LVM root?
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 06:04:43PM +0200, Daniel Tryba wrote:
> 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
> filling up.
Certainly if you are already making / small, it probably is because you
don't intend to ever have it be big.
> / 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.
I like it. It matches how I setup all my machines. After having done
the work to recover data from a machine where the drive started to fail,
I can't justify not using raid1 on every machine anymore. Disks are
just too cheap and my time has value to me.
--
Len Sorensen
Reply to: