Has anybody had good luck using FAI where it repartitions on a system that previously contained an lvm setup?
wfai at parplies.de
Tue Jul 16 15:01:29 CEST 2013
Ken Hahn wrote on 2013-07-15 16:33:55 -0500 [Re: Has anybody had good luck using FAI where it repartitions on a system that previously contained an lvm setup?]:
> 1. Am I an odd case, do other people have lvm and preserve working for them?
this probably won't help much, but I needed LVM and preserving LVs (and
renaming the VG) back in the days before setup-storage, so I implemented
exactly what *I* needed as a hook(*). Although I realize the benefits of
a generic solution supported by upstream, I never quite got around to
migrating to setup-storage - it would seem I might have been lucky ;-).
Maybe my setups and pre-existing harddisk layouts are just simple enough
that I don't need much complex logic. If they weren't, I surely wouldn't
be too keen on reinventing the wheel ...
My point is that FAI offers an incredible amount of flexibility. You can
easily do the partitioning yourself if you need something that the FAI
tools don't support out of the box. Of course, it would be preferable to
have a (well tested!) partitioning tool in FAI that handles every case
needed by anyone equally well. Then again, FAI has taught me that having
many simple scripts is much more maintainable and versatile than having
just one complex script. The same may or may not apply to partitioning.
(*) Yes, I admit, by now, I have several similar hooks. That's not ideal,
but I *could* merge them back into one hook if I found the time ...
More information about the linux-fai