dfussell at byu.edu
Wed Mar 13 18:21:12 MDT 2013
On 03/13/2013 05:06 PM, Corey Edwards wrote:
> On 03/13/2013 04:53 PM, John Nielsen wrote:
>> Using LVM would give me what I'm looking for, but I really would just
>> use it for the naming so it seems kind of silly: - each drive would
>> be its own volume group - each volume group would have exactly one
>> logical volume
> I would still recommend LVM. The overhead is essentially nil, it's quite
> standard across distributions, and it's robust. You'll also have
> flexibility if your needs change down the road.
And by flexibility, he means crazy awesomeness like moving the volume to
a different drive while it's being used.
Just make sure you have a decent replacement plan for _when_ a drive
dies. LVM will only make that situation worse, or at least more
complicated, if you can't handle and recover from the failure.
More information about the PLUG