Re: The case against LVM

[Tim <ignored_mailbox yahoo com au>]

Tim:
>> I'm curious about two things:  Wouldn't resizing LVM involve fragmenting
>> the drive, in another way? 

Ewan Mac Mahon:
> Only physically; if I allocate space to one filesystem, then create
> another, then extend the first one then the physical storage for the
> first one will be in two chunks with the second fs sitting between them.
> The point of LVM is that I don't need to care about it since it appears
> as a single logical space. 

Isn't that the situation with fragmentation of any sort, though?  The
heads having to skate about more, and only the drive really knows where
all the bits are (pun intended).  Does LVM really manage that more
efficiently?

-- 
[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.