Alan E. Davis wrote:
Norberto and Josh:
Thank you for the suggestion. It's on the back burner. I have the
space to experiment with it now. I have balked for the time being on
basis of, partly, my need to be able to swap drives in and out, and
have it clear in mind which partitions belong to what. Also my main
drive is a 10000 RPM faster drive, and I'd like to keep the partitions
or directories that are mainly for storage separated. I really do
notice a difference in the performance of the drive. this is somewhat
of a conundrum: how to keep the current projects focused on the faster
drive.
Interestingly (to me) while I carefully planned for swap on the faster
drive, since I moved to 2GB of RAM, I think I've only touched swap two
or three times, and then only passingly!
I definitely wouldn't want to put / into LVM.
If I do LVM it will be the easy way, the most clearcut way.
As one that's used LVM and other similar software in both Windows and
the BSDs, be sure you understand the risk involved. While the idea of
"one big drive" sounds appealing (which is why I used it), lose one
drive and you lose everything in the LV unless you are mirroring, using
parity, or some combination of both. I have been bit by this time and
time again and have finally decided that LVM is not worth the hassle for
me any longer, especially since a 1 TB drive can be found easily for
less than $200 (US).
Anyway, I'm not knocking those who use LVM. Just understand the risk. :)
Cheers,
Drew
--
Be a Great Magician!
Visit The Alchemist's Warehouse
http://www.alchemistswarehouse.com
