The case against LVM

[Ewan Mac Mahon]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:10:41PM +0930, Tim wrote:
> 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
<snip>
> > 
> > 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? 
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. 

> And, doesn't things like file quotas let you
> stop some users from using all available space?
>
Up to a point, but group quotas are rather less straightforward, IMHO.

There's the further point that I have some additional storage to add to
this system; once I've done that with LVM I can simply seamlessly extend
any of the existing filesystems onto that storage; while you could
probably divide up the pie with quotas, there'd be no way to make the
whole pie bigger.

Ewan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20070801/b048d849/attachment-0001.sig>