I forgot to mention in my original question that /boot wouldn't be in LVM, it'd be an ordinary partition.
Thank you for pointing out the fsck time consideration. Doesn't having ext3 fs reduce the fsck time? My motivation in considering LVM is to get a general solution to my Linux dasd constraints that I can use on all my Linux guests. My Linux guests start out as clones with about 4GB of disk; a default install of SLES 8. -----Original Message----- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Boyes Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 3:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Any caveats moving root filesystem to LVM? > But if LVM is so hard to fix then why use LVM even for /home, > /opt, etc? Because LVM is necessary to allow those file systems to be larger than a single physical volume, and those filesystems are not usually critical during early stages of the boot process where things are still a little fragile. LVM != RAID, although they share some common ideas and techniques. For most systems, / and /boot are never that large (so fsck time is negligible), and *are* critical during boot -- general KISS principle applies in known critical situations. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
