R: Re: problem with my host system

Wit 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 :-)
> Alan
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 mailing list