On 03/13/2013 05:06 PM, Corey Edwards wrote: > On 03/13/2013 04:53 PM, John Nielsen wrote: >> Using LVM would give me what I'm looking for, but I really would just >> use it for the naming so it seems kind of silly: - each drive would >> be its own volume group - each volume group would have exactly one >> logical volume > I would still recommend LVM. The overhead is essentially nil, it's quite > standard across distributions, and it's robust. You'll also have > flexibility if your needs change down the road. > > Corey > > And by flexibility, he means crazy awesomeness like moving the volume to a different drive while it's being used.
Just make sure you have a decent replacement plan for _when_ a drive dies. LVM will only make that situation worse, or at least more complicated, if you can't handle and recover from the failure. ;-Daniel Fussell /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
