From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.110.10]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9P8kR80023472 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:46:27 -0400 Received: from maude.comedia.it (mail.comedia.it [77.93.254.181]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9P8kBWi019642 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:46:12 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maude.comedia.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB26886F25 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:46:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from maude.comedia.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (maude.comedia.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with LMTP id 0veKyZPKRoTf for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:46:10 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:46:10 +0100 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Total free space using added VGs and LVs Message-ID: <20091025084610.GA737@maude.comedia.it> References: <20091023065219.GA8733@maude.comedia.it> <4AE20E43.2060006@worldspice.net> <20091024000642.GA30974@bdmcc-us.com> <29ae894c0910241004k327b0ff8w6577b83af3701753@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <29ae894c0910241004k327b0ff8w6577b83af3701753@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@redhat.com On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 07:04:49PM +0200, brem belguebli wrote: >It's non sense arguing that LVM is not intended for root due to the >fact that you cannot shrink it (growing online is operational and >works fine). > >This is the only thing that is not allowed, though technically could >it be possible. > Online shrinking is more difficult to achieve than online growing, and is much less frequently needed, it usually happens due to bad planning. I know some filesystem on different oses (namely vxfs) and btrfs on linux allow online shrinking, ext3/4 and xfs don't. The argument i find very difficult to grasp is what's so critical about root filesystem versus other filesystems If your server is (i.e.) a database server you will feel the filesystem holding the database data is as critical as the root filesystem, if you need to unmount that you might as well reboot. And the probability of having to touch the data filesystem is much higher than that of having to touch root. Also the argument that the server is in a colo miles away is nonsense, if it is a critical system it should have some means of oob management, most server vendors offer those as standard components. L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \