[linux-lvm] raid1+lvm without initrd

Toby Dickenson tdickenson at geminidataloggers.com
Mon Sep 23 05:17:44 UTC 2002

On Monday 23 Sep 2002 10:49 am, William Blunn wrote:
> > A few of the regulars on this list seem to have a setup like this
> > working.
> >
> > I have 2 disks mirrored with linux software raid-1. on top of this I have
> > created 3 lv's: root, var, and swap. So far I have not been able to
> > figure out the boot=,root= parameters that'll coax lilo into booting
> > this.
> >
> > A few of the regulars on this list seem to have something like this
> > working. Would someone post a working lilo configuration for a raid1+lvm
> > noninitrd setup?
> >
> > references to setups like this working:
> > http://lists.sistina.com/pipermail/linux-lvm/2002-September/012245.html
> > http://lists.sistina.com/pipermail/lvm-devel/2001-October/000686.html
> People often ask me questions to which my answer begins "One or more of
> the premises on which your question is based is false, therefore your
> question does not make any sense. Peeling back a layer and looking at
> what you are really trying to achieve, you might find that your best
> solution would be this: ... ".
> Don't put your root filesystem in an LVM.
> The small benefit of having it resizable is far outweighed by the setup
> cost and the maintenance difficulties you will get when things go wrong.
> Anything which is big and which might cause you to want to have a bigger
> root filesystem shouldn't be in there, and should be in one of your
> other filesystems instead.
> If you don't have a suitable filesystem for the new big thing, you can
> just create one --- you have an LVM!

Those are all good reason for always having one root filesystem that is not in 
LVM. If you have more than one root filesystem then I dont see a problem with 
putting it in LVM. Im not sure if this applies to the orginal poster, but I 
do think his question is still valid.

More information about the linux-lvm mailing list