On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:59:44 -0600, Zac Slade wrote:

> > But far more chance of running out of space on /usr, /var or /opt
> > while one of the others has plenty free. I prefer to have these three
> > on the same partition for a desktop, but separate from /. I use the
> > bind option to mount /var and /opt on /usr/var and /usr/opt
> Good god man!  This is about as kludgy as they come.  Sure it gets the
> job done, but this is EXACTLY what LVM was invented for.

This is not about partitions but filesystems.

> Partitions are hard (relatively) to resize.  However, logical volumes
> are not. You can increase them when they are full, or reduce their size
> when you need to distribute disk space to other places.

LVs are dead easy to resize, reducing the size of a filesystem is not
always that easy, or even possible.

> Also consider the case where you completely fill up your 200GB drive.
> What then?  Buy a new drive and migrate data from /home or /usr to the
> new disk and mount that, then reclaim the partition for some other fs
> etc.  You have the migration of data and the inflexibility of
> partitions to resize.  If you use LVM in the same case you just add the
> new disk to your volume group increase any logical volumes that are in
> need of more space and resize the filesystem.

I am using LVM, where did I say I wasn't?

If I run out of space and add a new disk, I can easily add a new physical
volume to the volume group and resize the partitions. How many
directories I keep on each partition has absolutely nothing to do with
this.

I want to have / on a small partition, so everything else can go on RAID
and LVM, but why should that force me to have separate filesystems
for /usr, /var and /opt if I don't want them?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...