On 2011/12/05 11:13 (GMT-0500) Anton Aylward composed:
Felix Miata said the following on 12/05/2011 10:51 AM:
Sounds like the same disadvantage as RAID0: one spindle dies, and takes down more than one's data in the process. I don't have faith in hardware that justifies recommending this to anyone.
Yes, it does SOUND like that, just as if you were to describe RAID and stop at RAID0 it would SOUND like RAID was pretty useless and highly vulnerable.
What I wrote was not meant to imply recommending against LVM to anyone, but only against an uninformed spreading of a volume across multiple spindles.
LVM brings a lot of flexibility to disk management. That's what you keep forgetting. Its not an either/or situation.
What makes you think I "keep" forgetting anything? In general (not always), more flexibility equates to more complexity. The only thing I may have forgotten in this thread, assuming I didn't choose to omit at the time, was to mention LVM as a possibility in my reply to the OP. Nothing I've written in this thread has been meant to directly advocate against LVM. Mainly it's been about ensuring thread readers are informed about some issues involved in choosing a partitioning scheme. One issue not heretofore mentioned is that some users are interested in multiboot that permits sharing data in two directions between M$ and Linux. Is this ever possible when exclusively LVM is in place on Linux (advance writing specific data for a particular purpose to M$ partition from Linux does not count for this question)? IOW, can files ever be natively read from a Linux LVM volume during M$ boot (VMs do not count), much less written directly to a Linux LVM volume? -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org