R: Re: problem with my host system
WitlessIdiot at triad.rr.com
Sat Oct 6 12:26:52 PDT 2007
Alan Lord wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > FWIW, Alexander uses LVM for everything (I think), and the LFS server
>> (setup by Gerard) is on an LVM raid. <snip>
> I kind of see the benefits of LVM, but don't really get why it is so
> popular. If you span multiple discs with a volume group you basically
> double the risk of catastrophic failure with each disk added - just like
> raid 0 :-)
LVM offers a lot. Admins of large rapidly changing installations benefit
most. But us simple users can benefit too. One of my favorite features
is the snapshot, which allows backup against a live operating file
system within LVM. It can also increase performance by striping and, I
am informed by a kernel-aware guy, it has better scheduling that offsets
the overhead one might anticipate. It allows the expansion of a file
system without having to "repartition". Multiple disks can be
dynamically assigned, in whole or in part, to different logical volumes.
Or they can be partitioned and split among traditional and LVM use.
For myself, I mix things. The "core" is kept LFS-compatible. "/",
"/var", "/etc", etc. Are left in traditional partitions. They don't tend
to grow much, they are essentially static and predominately read-only
with the most oft-used stuff already cached. LVM doesn't offer much
benefit there, IMO.
"/home", certain subdirectories of "/usr", "/local", etc. *may* benefit
from LVM application, depending on your usage.
In this way, my base LFS install is not dependent on LVM, no augmented
initramfs is needed to get to a rescue mode if there is a problem, I can
have spare space for traditional partitions and/or LVM use as needed.
More information about the lfs-support