On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 11:56 -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote: > Personally, I like Nicholas' suggestion a lot more. LVM is great for > situations where rebooting is a bad thing (servers, for example), but on > a desktop, rebooting doesn't matter and LVM adds unnecessary complexity. > It's better to lazily make a filesystem that spans the whole disk, then > use the time you would have spent learning and maintaining LVM to > instead make regular backups.
*shrug* If you think cleaning your gutters and using a hammer is better
than buying a nail gun, I guess that's your business. Myself, I'd elect
to clean the gutters and buy the nail gun.
Frankly, I don't see how taking backups is a valid alternative to
learning new skills. Wouldn't you want to do both?
Sure, there's an up-front cost to learn LVM. But the whole point is that
there is no "maintaining LVM". LVM makes long term maintenance easier,
not harder.
--
Stuart Jansen e-mail/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
google talk: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at
the results." -- Winston Churchill
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
