On Fri August 24 2018 09:09:14 Gene Heskett wrote: > The consensus is that LVM still isn't quite ready for prime time, and > with big drives, no longer needed. That is an opinion and also the consensus as of 15-20 years ago. It is not the current consensus. We have used LVM since 2004 or before. It would take too long for me to determine the exact start date and the total number of systems upon which we have deployed LVM. I can however quote you from memory the number of problems we have experienced: zero. For simple systems it is generally easiest to use only a boot and an "everything else" partition with neither LVM nor complex partitioning. For more complex systems LVM is a valuable and robust tool and much more flexible than partitioning. Within a single complex system we may use multiple volume groups with different PE sizes, different RAID levels, different block/inode ratios, different reserved block percentages, different mount attributes (e.g. noexec), and different user quotas. We currently use ext3 exclusively but others may also use different filesystem types in different logical volumes as appropriate. FWIW we have many times found LVM helpful when migrating from failing hard drives to new drives - just add the new physical volumes, remove the old physical volumes, and everything is migrated by magic. --Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
