Re: lvm on a single big partition or just a single big partition?
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 06:48:03PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 11:44:00AM -0500, Zhengquan Zhang wrote:
> > Though I have used lvm for some time, I have one question that I don't
> > understand.
> >
> > For one harddrive I often create a /boot parition that is not lvm and
> > create a huge partition on the rest of the harddrive for PV of lvm. Now
> > I am thinking what is the difference between doing partition like this
> > and just a single big partition without lvm?
>
> With one big partition, you lose the ability to:
>
> - have a separate /var (or /var/log) to keep logs from
> filling up /
>
> - have different mount options (e.g. noexec, nodev) on
> /home
>
> - have a separate /home
>
>
> Without LVM, you lose the ability to :
>
> - resize partitions as needed
>
> - migrate data from one disk to another, e.g. if a drive
> starts misbehaving but you need to keep the system live
> rather than reinstalling/restoring.
Could you elaborate more on this? As far as migration is concerned, what
is the advantage of LVM?
>
>
> Instead of a separate /boot, I often use a separate / (which contains
> /boot). In this way, the / partition isn't part of LVM (I make it 500
> MB and usually only have under 200 MB used) and can be booted into if
> the need arises, with more tools available than within the initrd. Most
> of my boxes won't boot a live CD.
So I guess for /tmp /var /usr etc you have separate LVs? or else a 500M
/ should be too small?
>
> Doug.
Thanks for the pros and cons. I have clearer understanding now.
--
Zhengquan
Reply to: