On 11/26/09 12:53 PM, "Scott Rohling" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I know we've had this discussion before.. but.. I fail to understand why > everyone seems to find LVM reliable for everything BUT /. I'm promised it > will certainly fail - it's just a matter of time. Why?? Why does the > reliability of LVM suddenly break down when you talk about a particular > filesystem? I find it illogical. It's not that LVM is unreliable for /, it's that it's a copper-plated bear to fix when it DOES go wrong. If you have / as non-LVM, at least the system will usually boot far enough to give you useful tools to fix the problem, and the last thing you need when something breaks is more hassles -- the users breathing down your neck is usually plenty. There's also the argument that if you have done things right, then you should never need to resize or change / -- you shouldn't be dumping stuff in the / partition anyway because that's a guaranteed crash in the making. If everything else is mounted from a partition, and the only thing in / is the bare minimum, then you can pretty much replace / and everything else is just fine. Mark's suggested layout is a really well-thought out way to do a server-class system. It uses LVM where LVM makes sense, and keeps the number of things that can make recovery a PITA to a minimum. ++good, citizen. -- db ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
