[CentOS] Install without LVM -

Thu Feb 6 20:42:01 UTC 2014
James A. Peltier <jpeltier at sfu.ca>

----- Original Message -----
| Am 06.02.2014 21:16, schrieb James A. Peltier:
| > ----- Original Message -----
| > | 
| > | How do I install from the centos 6.5 dvd without LVM? Nothing I
| > | have
| > | tried will permit me to make my own layout unless I accept LVM.
| > | 
| > | Bob
| > | 
| > | --
| > | http://www.qrz.com/db/w2bod
| > | Box10 Fedora-20/64bit Linux/XFCE
| > | 
| > | _______________________________________________
| > | CentOS mailing list
| > | CentOS at centos.org
| > | http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
| > | 
| > 
| > If not doing a graphical install you will be limited in many
| > respects as to what you can do from a disk layout perspective.
| > I would also ask why it is that you are choosing not to use LVM
| > which offers many bits of useful functionality over
| > traditional partitions
| LVM does not offer *anything* sane if it is only blind LVM

It's statements like this that are most frustrating.  You have made assumptions as to what this person is trying to do rather than answering the question.  I answered the question and posed another question.  If he's asking one, it might be good to know why the question was asked in the first place.
| what benefits?
| that you can extend it with additional disks?
| nobody right in his mind would do that without have LVM on top of

So, the fact that I use LVM on a single disk makes me out of my mind?  I do this because I may miscalculate the disk requirements for one mount point over another.  I don't have the traditional whole disk lv_root volume.  I have seperate LVs for /var, /home, /data, /local-scratch all of which can be resized at a whim.  Oh, and if I get a bigger disk (/data is on a whole disk LVM PV), I can just do a pvmigrate over to the bigger disk.  There are many useful reasons to have LVM.

| why? because *any* disk failure would be fatal
| having 3 disks that way you have *three times* more likely a complete
| data loss

Sure, here you are correct.  If you've gone and done something like place an Logical Volume across multiple single points of failure you've done something that may be seen as "bad".  It's not our place to judge the decision, it's our place to offer possible solutions to the needs of the user.
| the ordinary uiser *doesn not* need LVM nor can he handle it proper
| the advanced user knows hat he is doing and could select it anyways

Define ordinary user in this context.  The user has made no statement to how "ordinary" they are.  They asked a question.  The question was answered and another question (mine) asked to try to figure out what the OP is trying to do.

| this was, is and will ever be a useless and often dangerous default

There is no proof that this is a dangerous default.  LVM works just fine while offering additional functionality whether used by the "ordinary" user or not.  Offer up concrete evidence as to how LVM vs partitions is any less dangerous on any SPoF failure system.  I'd be interested to hear it as I myself have not run into problems with LVM in the past decade or so.  Ya, it used to be bad, but it's much, *much* better than it was.

James A. Peltier
Manager, IT Services - Research Computing Group
Simon Fraser University - Burnaby Campus
Phone   : 778-782-6573
Fax     : 778-782-3045
E-Mail  : jpeltier at sfu.ca
Website : http://www.sfu.ca/itservices

"I want to inspire people.  I want someone to say "because of you I didn't give up". - Chanda Kaushik