1 |
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Another example is LVM. You or I might really need it (debatable now we |
4 |
> have ZFS) but the average user has no concept of what it might be, or |
5 |
> care. So why do Ubuntu installers shove it in your face as something |
6 |
> really cool that you should really really use? Because the author of the |
7 |
> installer thinks it's really cool, that's why. |
8 |
> |
9 |
|
10 |
Maybe. |
11 |
|
12 |
Or maybe because when that computer's hard drive starts getting full |
13 |
and you add a new hard drive, if you're using lvm with a few commands |
14 |
you can make your /home expand across both drives, while with straight |
15 |
partitions that is a lot more work. |
16 |
|
17 |
There really is no reason not to use some kind of volume management |
18 |
solution these days, whether that is zfs/btrfs, or lvm. When your |
19 |
data is on lvm it is MUCH easier to move it around than if you just |
20 |
put it directly on drive partitions. |
21 |
|
22 |
Arguably you want more flexibility around adding/removing drives on |
23 |
the desktop than in the enterprise, because desktop users don't add |
24 |
and remove drives in sets of 5-6. This is why I think btrfs is |
25 |
actually superior to zfs conceptually on the desktop (setting aside |
26 |
the fact that it will tend to eat your data) - the flexibility matters |
27 |
more on the small scale because you want to go from a 3-disk RAID5 to |
28 |
a 4-disk RAID5. |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Rich |