[sf-lug] LVM ? :-)

[Shane Tzen]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> Quoting Michael Paoli (Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu):
>
> > ...but repartitioning is quite inconvenient and generally requires a
> > reboot if it's where the operating system is running or the data is
> > otherwise being used.
>
> If you have to do this shuffle more than once a decade on average for a
> system, I'd say you're doing something very wrong, so personally I think
> LVM's gosh-wow factor of being able to do this transparently, because of
> an extra indirection layer, comes at too high a price in complexity and
> increased likelihood of system-endangering sysadmin error.
>

Coincidentally, I had expand a couple of partitions for work last week
where if not for LVM, the services that the systems provided would have had
to be interrupted for downtime.  Instead, I attached a couple of new (EBS)
volumes, extended the volume groups, mirrored them, then removed the old
volumes once the mirroring was done.  All without a noticeable impact to
the underlying service.

The paradigm of spec'ing the system so that it's max provisioned for
whatever may come down the line is valid.  But it's also possible to
provision for what's needed in the short to medium term, then expand as
needed (if nothing more than a cost savings measure).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/attachments/20151112/7a9a0981/attachment.html>