The naming is not an issue if your recovery system has been built with a different naming "standard" in place that doesn't match the clones.
Having the root filesystem as an LVM makes life much simpler should a time come when you need to extend its size. LVM has given us some flexibility here that I wouldn't want to give up, and handling all our filesystems the same way has its benefits. Also, in future releases of RedHat, I expect to see LVM become more of a standard, as the requirement that the boot partition not be managed by LVM is removed. -- Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation .~. RO-OC-1-18 200 First Street SW /V\ 507-284-0844 Rochester, MN 55905 /( )\ ----- ^^-^^ "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different." On 2/23/12 3:29 PM, "David Boyes" <[email protected]> wrote: > This is what we recommend as well. Note also here that / is NOT a LVM. > > If/when something chokes, it's a lot easier to fix stuff if you don't need to > get LVM working for the root first, especially if you clone systems from a > template and all the LVM groups have the same names in all the machines. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 more information on Linux on System z, visit > http://wiki.linuxvm.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
