> >In my case, LVM is a complicated tool for a simple job. LVM is close to >RAID and far from what I need: a simple way of coalesce disk storage >space, unionfs seemed the right tool. I was certain it can do what I >want when it was chosen because it seems a simple request/feature >compared with it's other capabilities. >I have considered both LVM and RAID and I'd rather avoid them both in >the given scenario. > If you can live with a per-file distribution, then http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/pipermail/unionfs/2006-January/001600.html
Jan Engelhardt -- _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
