Re: The case against LVM

[Tim <ignored_mailbox yahoo com au>]

On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 02:22 +0100, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
> I have a server with ~16Tb of storage that's shared amongst research
> groups in a university dept. Each group has their own filesystem, and
> LVM means that I can allocate space to whichever one particularly
> needs it without predicting up front who that will be. It lets me add
> more storage without disrupting the logical structure (e.g. no
> splitting groups between /mnt/olddisk and /mnt/newdisk and finding
> that the group that needs more space is on the disk that doens't have
> any), and it means I can easily allocate space to temporary systems
> and claim it back afterwards for general use.
> 
> That machines predecessor didn't use LVM and it was a nightmare to
> admin with free space fragmented all over the place. I wouldn't go
> back.

I'm curious about two things:  Wouldn't resizing LVM involve fragmenting
the drive, in another way?  And, doesn't things like file quotas let you
stop some users from using all available space?

-- 
[tim bigblack ~]$ uname -ipr
2.6.22.1-33.fc7 i686 i386

Using FC 4, 5, 6 & 7, plus CentOS 5.  Today, it's FC7.

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.