Scott Rohling wrote:
I think there are pros and cons - enough on both sides that I wouldn't flat
out tell someone "don't do it".. Recovery is less easy, yes, but certainly
possible - you just have more than one DASD to consider.
I think this is one of those topics that is endlessly debatable, so it's
best just to list the pros and cons (and not just the cons) and leave it to
the implementer to decide why they may or may not want to use LVM for root.
DASD. Then - make your system unbootable (put an error in your /etc/fstab
or zipl.conf or something) .. and then try and recover it with both an LVM
and non-LVM root. These are the kinds of pros and cons you have to weigh
yourself..
My Linux experience is principally on Intellish hardware.
My favourite rescue disk is Knoppix, preferably the latest but in a
pinch, whatever is to hand. It does not understand RH's LVM setup.
OTOH RH/Fedora rescue CDs[1] do understand LVM and can mount the system
needing rescue. How it would actually handle an incorrect fstab I don't
know, but I would fully expect it to get the the point where I could
apply a little vim (or sed or echo) and fix it. It's probably
complicated to use an alternative standard system to rescue an
LVM-rooted system (but maybe not if the alternative doesn't use LVM). I
have seen problems discussed where duplicate volume/group names arose,
in Fedora.
[1] and presumably install media in rescue mode.
In a mainframe environment I'd want to do as I did on OS/2, have a small
utility/rescue system on hand for just such emergencies.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
