-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 04 Aug 2003 1:14 am, Neal Lippman wrote: > I am looking at installing the lvm layer on my file server, which is > presently running woody. I have two 80GB hd's, one of which presently > stores my /home partition (exported via both nfs and samba to the other > systems on my home lan), and another which I just installed. (Actually, > there's a third 80GB which stores /, /boot, /usr, /tmp, and /var, but I > won't be including that in the lvm). Anyway, I figured the best approach > was to turn both 80GB data drives into one 160gb logical volume. Since > this is the main file store of everyone at home, stability is a very > very high priority. > > My questions are: > > 1) Which lvm package to install? There are two obvious choices, lvm10 > and lvm2. While lvm2 is the new rewrite, which is supposedly "stable", > it apparently lacks some features and according to the debian.org > description of the package is not yet ready for production use. So, I > assume I am correct in going for lvm10 at the present time?
I use lvm10 on both a server and a workstation - I did run across a problem with it crashing when I created lots of logical volumes in a row - I reported this as a debian bug which got fixed (I think it needed a kernel patch). > > 2) If I do go with lvm10, will upgrading to lvm2 once it is ready for > production use just be a matter of apt-get install'ing lvm2 and removing > lvm10, or are there incompatibilities in the on-disk structure that > would mean starting over from scratch? That would be a major problem > once I have stuff scattered across 160GB of logical space on two > physical drives. Don't know > > 3) lvm10 recommends kernel version 2.4.20; I am running the standard > 2.4.18 on the server. It is crucial to do this upgrade? (I suppose it I think at least one reason would be because of the bug I mentioned above. > wouldn't hurt since 2.4.20 contains the driver for my server's onboard > gigabit ethernet chip, which I am not presently using as 2.4.18 did not > support it, but still, I like to do as little as possible to the > fileserver.) > > 4) Is anyone using lvm on their system who can comment on success, > failure, pitfalls, etc? I do not use lvm for the root filesystem. Its just too much hastle to get a boot floppy that can read it if problems - by the same token I use ext3 for the root filesystem and reiserfs for all the others. > > 5) I was debating using ReiserFS instead of ext2 as I have been - any > thoughts on whether that would make sense? It works fine - in fact I would say better because ext3(2?) seems to need a lot of checks to increase the filesystem size. Reiser does it on the fly. - -- Alan Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/LrnbuFHxcV2FFoIRAii2AJ9UmCUF9j1+la73h1E3xfIn52+nCACdFWyl XlFV+hi+UPf1gooxMhsPkj4= =Sx9d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
