On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Patrick Bartek <bartek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Ken Heard wrote: > > > [snip] > > I never did get LVM going on top of RAID1. Since I had to use an > > mini-ITX box there would not be room in it for more than the two hard > > drives already there and used for the RAID1. I consequently made a > > virtue out of necessity by deciding that I did not need LVM. If ever > > I need more hard drive space it will have to be external. > > I'm curious. Why would you want to use LVM with such a set up? Seems > pointless. Not advantageous. For a non-server situation. Even if you > do add additional hard drives (externally), they can be mounted and used > effectively by conventional means. Am I missing something here? When I dig into my LVM setup, I note that much of the LVM functionality seems to be oriented to providing RAID-like functionality. Would that explain why people don't seem to be using LVM together with the non-LVM RAID packages? This probably is tangled up in the hardware RAID vs. software RAID argument? -- Joel Rees Be careful where you see conspiracy. Look first in your own heart.
