From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i57FcK009508 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:38:20 -0400 Received: from eclectic.kluge.net (eclectic.kluge.net [66.92.69.221]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i57FcEXn006985 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:38:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:38:09 -0400 From: Theo Van Dinter Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] software raid or lvm? Message-ID: <20040607153809.GM31405@kluge.net> References: <40C48905.80608@blocked.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RLVVO53zhS75EYih" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40C48905.80608@blocked.name> 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: To: LVM general discussion and development --RLVVO53zhS75EYih Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 05:25:57PM +0200, philip wrote: > like to install suse91, which doesn't support siimage chipset, so i've to= =20 > use software raid or lvm. > what would be better/faster? Well, what are you trying to do? If you want redundancy, go with RAID. If you want volume management, go with LVM. I'd say you should do both (RAID the disks then use LVM on top), but without more data there is no answer for "better/faster". --=20 Randomly Generated Tagline: Why is there a file in the /usr/include/unused directory? --RLVVO53zhS75EYih Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAxIvh7tgKAJaXVyoRAp2UAKC07r9l7y6LZWQgwLdDH3vLI9wceQCaAwW3 TSX0UnbFJvqkXmHwYstKCLc= =wvKV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --RLVVO53zhS75EYih--