On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:54:25AM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote: > Terry Polzin wrote: > > >> I've been using LVM on one computer for some time, > >> without any real problems. > >> > >> However, I've decided that it causes unnecessary complications, > >> as some applications do not seem to accept the LVM devices, > >> while I don't find any real advantages to compensate. > > >> I wonder if that is the general experience? > > > Definitely an asset when connected to a SAN. > > Why, as a matter of interest? > I think it depends more on the uses of the storage than the underlying technology, but it helps to have something with enough space to have some flexibility. I have a server with ~16Tb of storage that's shared amongst research groups in a university dept. Each group has their own filesystem, and LVM means that I can allocate space to whichever one particularly needs it without predicting up front who that will be. It lets me add more storage without disrupting the logical structure (e.g. no splitting groups between /mnt/olddisk and /mnt/newdisk and finding that the group that needs more space is on the disk that doens't have any), and it means I can easily allocate space to temporary systems and claim it back afterwards for general use. That machines predecessor didn't use LVM and it was a nightmare to admin with free space fragmented all over the place. I wouldn't go back. OTOH, if you've got a single machine with a small disk and you want to divide it into /boot, / and swap, then you might as well use partitions as LVM. Ewan
Attachment:
pgpUfnk3g08F8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
