On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 15:09 +1200, Tony Wicks wrote: > This is why I've always been opposed to this "over partitioning" that > people do. It made some sense when hard drives were 2 gig but now it > just causes problems for no tangible gain. I would disagree with this statement. It made less sense (although IMO it still *did* make sense) because it was so hard to get the allocation % correct and there was very little slop to recover. With larger drives, lots of slop and growth room (could leave unallocated space on the disk: couldn't do that often on the small disks). But what really makes it useful (counter-intuitive, but true IMO) is the availability of LVM. Even considering some of the overlapping functionality, aggressive partitioning with aggressive use of the LVM facilities can yield a lot. But remember that I'm new to LVM and my opinion should be suspect. > <snip> -- Bill
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
