Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:06:38AM -0400, E0x wrote:
i asking it because i was thinking in use lvm in desktop setup , and i can
live with a harddisk lose and the data on it , but not with all data lost
for a desktop setup, using lvm over several small disks is essentially
the same thing as using one large disk with several partitions on
it. If one of the disks fail, you probably lose it all. That said, it
can still be advantageous to use lvm in this context because of the
flexibility down the road -- if you need to adjust the sizes of your
partitions, you can do so easily.
there is no other advantage and in fact there may be disadvantages
because the additional number of disks increases the odds of
encountering a failure.
Frankly, this "advantage" is pretty weak, IMO. So far, I see no real
need for it. I suppose that there are those who constantly tweak
their systems. The advantage usually touted is that one can easily
add new discs. But I'd rather have one large disc than several small
ones, anyway. I suppose one who constantly installed one OS after
another and wanted ease of "repartitioning" could use it. So far,
I see no advantage for normal users. I am astounded that some distros
use LVM as the default.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
