[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: lvm vs traditional partitioning

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?). 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: