On Mar 13, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Daniel Fussell <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. >> > 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. Thanks for the responses! LVM it is. The data on these disks will be replicated at the application layer, so a disk failure is not an emergency. When the disk is replaced, it just needs to have volume group and logical volume names that match what is in fstab, then get a new filesystem. Once it's mounted the application can repopulate its contents. JN /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
