From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Dilger Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 17:26:12 -0600 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM Message-ID: <20010912172612.C1541@turbolinux.com> References: <3B9F66BE.DFE69112@carolina.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Sep 12, 2001 15:47 -0700, IT3 Stuart B. Tener, USNR-R wrote: > Prior to using LVM, it did not matter that my single Linux partition > (the root "/") was located beyond the 1024 cylinder. Why does LVM > move me backwards in making it requisite to again have this limitation > present? Perhaps I ought to wait until LVM becomes more mature then. I doubt that this is necessary. LILO doesn't understand anything but BIOS-accessible disk blocks, whether it is LVM + ext2/ext3/reiserfs/other. If you can use your partition beyond cylinder 1024 before, you can continue to do so later. That said, there are reasons for NOT putting all of your eggs in one basket (e.g. LVM). If there is any problem with LVM, you will not be able to boot your system. On my systems I have /boot in a regular partition (about 70MB) which has my kernels/initrd in it, along with enough tools from /bin and /sbin, and libs from /lib in order to have a rescue boot partition in case of trouble. Once I have tested the booting from that partition, I don't touch it anymore (it has a separate "rescue" kernel, modules, etc). Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert