On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Paul Lussier wrote: >> That reminds me of people who say X11 is silly, because they have never >> "needed" to use one program from another machine on MS-Windows. I find >> the limitations of the system in use tend to shape what one regards as >> one's> "needs" quite a bit. :-) > > Well, this is a little different. In my experiences, any time I've had > to migrate a file system, I've been moving an old fs to newly acquired > disk space which has always been larger than the space currently > occupied. So I've always been able to perform a full copy.
Of course, would you have done it that way if you had the ability to do it a different way? Maybe you would have, at it turns out, but that's not the point. The point is that one tends to plan around the limitations in a system. A well-designed plan will accommodate all such limitations, with the end result being that you never "needed" to work around them. Consider, again, the X11 analogy. Microsoft's approach to the problem of remote administration is different. Rather than enabling the ability to run a program on one computer and display on another, a "proper" Windows program will use RPCs or DCOM or some other network programming framework. Thus, Microsoft people never "need" something like X11. Whether or not this is the Right Thing to do is immaterial; the point is, they never encounter the "need" because their approach is different. > What I don't understand though, is that say you had your file system > striped across several disks and needed to increase space. If you're > using an LVM, why would you shrink anything? Sorry -- I meant migrating from one filesystem *format* to another, in place. For example, if you countered a limitation in ext2, and wanted to switch to ReiserFS, and did not have the ability to add additional disk space at that moment. Sure, you could do this by backing up on tape, replacing the old filesystem, and restoring, but the approach I described might be more appropriate (or not). (As it turns out, we were buying more disk at the same time anyway, so we did it the "traditional" way, but again, that's not the point.) > Wouldn't you just add the new disk(s) and extend the current file > system? Unless you can't do that with Linux's LVM. You can. Indeed, Linux's LVM has been working quite well for us, and is all around very professional in both form and function. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
