From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:43:04 -0500 From: lembark@wrkhors.com Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Root on LV Message-ID: <4740000.1000928584@duke.wrkhors.com> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com -- Steve Pratt on 09/19/01 13:54:23 -0500 >> .Q: Why bother to put 64MB on an LVM? > >> The root volume doesn't grow much (make it 128MB and it'll never need to >> grow). > > Sure, you could always do this. > >> If you ever have a problem with LVM you'll end up with an unbootable >> system... > > Right, which is why volume managers need to be really stable and robust. > Bottom line is that if this is the confidence level you have in your > volume manager (whether it is LVM or EVMS), I would question putting any > data on it. That's like saying you don't need ABS brakes because tire makers should make ones with really, really good traction. If you look at the commercial LVM systems (e.g., HP's) they get around LVM failures by having a non-trivial boot system that allows side- stepping LVM at boot time via the command line. This is done on HP by requring /dev/vg00/lvol[123] to be contiguous and starting at offset 0 on the VG. You can boot vmunix -lm if LVM gets toasted and at least get the boot, swap and root volumes on line to fix the problem. Lacking that much intelligence in the hardware level of Intel boot rom's you are one helluvalot sa[fn]er to put the root and primary swap on /dev/[hs]da[12] and go from there. sl