On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:59:44 -0600, Zac Slade wrote: > > But far more chance of running out of space on /usr, /var or /opt > > while one of the others has plenty free. I prefer to have these three > > on the same partition for a desktop, but separate from /. I use the > > bind option to mount /var and /opt on /usr/var and /usr/opt > Good god man! This is about as kludgy as they come. Sure it gets the > job done, but this is EXACTLY what LVM was invented for.
This is not about partitions but filesystems. > Partitions are hard (relatively) to resize. However, logical volumes > are not. You can increase them when they are full, or reduce their size > when you need to distribute disk space to other places. LVs are dead easy to resize, reducing the size of a filesystem is not always that easy, or even possible. > Also consider the case where you completely fill up your 200GB drive. > What then? Buy a new drive and migrate data from /home or /usr to the > new disk and mount that, then reclaim the partition for some other fs > etc. You have the migration of data and the inflexibility of > partitions to resize. If you use LVM in the same case you just add the > new disk to your volume group increase any logical volumes that are in > need of more space and resize the filesystem. I am using LVM, where did I say I wasn't? If I run out of space and add a new disk, I can easily add a new physical volume to the volume group and resize the partitions. How many directories I keep on each partition has absolutely nothing to do with this. I want to have / on a small partition, so everything else can go on RAID and LVM, but why should that force me to have separate filesystems for /usr, /var and /opt if I don't want them? -- Neil Bothwick I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
