Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:06:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:05:57 -0500 Received: from note.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU ([129.94.242.29]:49924 "HELO note.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:05:50 -0500 From: Neil Brown To: Matt Stegman Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:05:15 +1100 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14996.33259.965914.505080@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: partitions for RAID volumes? In-Reply-To: message from Matt Stegman on Wednesday February 21 In-Reply-To: <14996.16520.832011.18@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under Emacs 20.7.2 X-face: [Gw_3E*Gng}4rRrKRYotwlE?.2|**#s9D On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Neil Brown wrote: Paragraph 1 > > Using this, I can RAID1 hda and hdc together as md0 == mda and then > > partition it up as mda1 (root) mda2 (swap) mda3 (other). And if I > > have too, I can boot off either drive individually with any raid > > happening. > Paragraph 2 > Is there any particular reason to prefer this over LVM? With 2.4, LVM can > be a layer atop of software RAID, allowing for multiple volumes, online > volume resizing, and other cool things. > > -Matt Stegman > > Paragraph 1 is my answer to paragraph 2. Also, I don't particularly want to use LVM. Partitions work fine for me. I don't need to learn new tools. It's about choice. NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/