> I use LVM, adding a second disk was easy - just grew the volume and > relevant partitions, expanded the reiserfs file systems and my problem > with lack of space was gone. Highly reccomended for future proofing on > any system - even single disk systems. I also find multiple partitions > very wasteful - most partitions have plenty of space, one runs out of > room and the systems crashes or data is lost. From experience, its much > safer, and much less work to have fewer partitions (and therefore more > headroom - space) and move them around using LVM so the space is shared > around. Depends on your usage and application of course - I wouldnt do > that on a large, multi user system for instance.
Yeah, this may be true but we seem to be talking about the 'amount of work' to do things on LVM vs non-LVM. Honestly I really don't see a significant argument for this on one side or the other. I partitioned my disks years ago w/o LVM and, due to pre-planning to accommodate future growth needs, haven't had to touch the partitions since then. I would imagine that the same could be said by folks running LVM. I did partition my system with 10+ separate partitions because I've seen what a pain it can be trying to resolve a full partition on some critical paths (i.e. /, /usr, /var) and have found that isolating them offers some protection for system usability should such partitions fill. We all have our own backgrounds and our own experience and knowledge which push us towards one method or another. My recommendation to the OP is to go with what he feels is right. Sure, consider what folks on the list are suggesting, but in the end you're going to come up with something that will work for you. And since it is relatively easy to handle partition growth using either method (lvm vs. non-lvm), you really can't lose regardless which way you go. Dave -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
