On Mon, 26 May 2008 12:50:10 +0200 Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de> wrote:
On 2008-05-23T13:59:37, Washington Irving <washton.irving@gmail.com> wrote:
LVM is just one more thing to go wrong, and should not be used unless you need it -- because if your system gets hosed, and your LVM table is one of the things that got hosed, if for some reason you can't fix that,...your data is hosed, too.
LVM rocks. Everybody should be using LVM, and not partitions. The flexibility is so much nicer. I wish we'd finally make it the default.
We've not had a "LVM hosed my system" bug since 2000, I think.
Lars, I like LVM and have been using it on various systems (Hp-UX, Tru64 Unix, RHEL, etc.) for years. We have a number of servers in our office running RHEL 4 configured with LVM. The flexibility is excellent. BUT.... I recently had an intermittently bad disk, that essentially required me to rebuild that system. I could not remove it from the group. However, I don't think it is really ready for the average non-technical user today. I didn't lose any data because the system was actually the backup system. -- -- Jerry Feldman <gaf@blu.org> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846