LVM or not?

[Christopher K. Johnson]

There is no reason why you cannot make one 100MB RAID-1 device 
containging /boot, and one big RAID-1 device with the remaining space, 
setting the filesystem type to "physical volume (LVM)", then make your 
LVM with that to put swap and the other filesystems in.
If bothering to create separate filesystems for /home and /usr/local 
then LVM is worthwhile.
Allocate moderate sized logical volumes containing /, /home, and 
/usr/local, so you can add space where needed when space runs short.
LVs and the ext2/3 filesystems in them can be grown while active using 
lvextend and ext2online commands.

Chris
Fajar Priyanto wrote:
> On Monday 12 June 2006 10:51, Bob Hartung wrote:
>   
>> Hi all,
>>    I am putting together a new workstation, test bed, learning tool with
>> hardware RAID 1 on two 300 Gb HD.  After reading through the online docs
>> it seems that I have no use for LVM in this environment.  Yet Disk Druid
>> uses this as the default on a new installation.
>> 1.  Is there any sense in using LVM in my situation?
>> 2.  I am planning on this as a partition scheme:
>>       /boot
>>       /
>>       /home
>>       /usr/local
>>     
>
> If you plan to use the server for a long time, and if you think that the 
> freespace would be decreasing fast, I'd suggest that you use LVM. With LVM we 
> can increase partition size by adding additional harddisk.
>
> Partition scheme is more than an art and experience than exact science. But, 
> as a rule, it's best if we separate the partition where we would keep it's 
> content intact when we do upgrade.
>
> CMIIW,
>