Re: to lvm or not to lvm?
> That sounds like poor implementation, the critical bit is not to let it
> iterate without it having worked the first time. I still don't see anything
> wrong with the concept as long as it's implemented right, although I've
> never dealt with a system on the scale you're talking about.
The problem is that your "good implementation" only protects you from the
problems you thought about, whereas there will always be some unexpected new
situation next time around. Just like the auto-replies for email.
The "safe implementation" which only monitors but doesn't try to auto-extend
the partitions will be just as useful in 99% of the cases.
> I've never seen anything that busy, had a MythTV backed that would sit
> with the load average up at 3 or 5 and I though that was "getting my
> moneys worth".
Problem is not the number of processes, but the amount of disk thrashing