| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 30/08/2013 07:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:21 AM, J. Roeleveld <joost@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> gottlieb@×××.edu wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On Thu, Aug 29 2013, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:19 PM, <gottlieb@×××.edu> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>>>> I have experience with LVM, but not systemd or dracut or initramfs |
| 10 |
>>>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>>>> * both grub and grub2 support lvm |
| 12 |
>>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>>> Does GRUB legacy handles /boot in LVM? I haven't tried that yet. |
| 14 |
>>>> |
| 15 |
>>>> That I don't know. I believe the LVM "companion manual" that I am |
| 16 |
>>>> seeking and that I used for previous installs advised against /boot on |
| 17 |
>>>> lvm (probably also /lib and others). Perhaps this was simply |
| 18 |
>>>> reflecting |
| 19 |
>>>> no initramfs. Hence any grub issue with /boot on lvm didn't arise. |
| 20 |
>>>> |
| 21 |
>>>> allan |
| 22 |
>>> |
| 23 |
>>> No. |
| 24 |
>>> |
| 25 |
>>> Grub legacy does not support LVM for the /boot. |
| 26 |
>>> That's why I have it there. |
| 27 |
>>> |
| 28 |
>>> UEFI only understands FAT. Which means you need to have a boot partition |
| 29 |
>>> outside of LVM for that. |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>> Good to know, thanks. Another reason not to use LVM I guess. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Why not use LVM? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I just don't see the point. I have never used it, and now that I have |
| 36 |
a test system, I don't see any advantage for my particular use cases. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> Yes, it is some added complexity you need to understand but it stays out |
| 39 |
> of your way till you need it, doesn't affect disk efficiency in any |
| 40 |
> significant way and just works. When you need the services it offers |
| 41 |
> they are there and until then just use mkfs and mount the block device |
| 42 |
> it offers. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
My point exactly; I have never needed its services in 18 years using |
| 45 |
Linux (servers and workstation). Again, in my use cases. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> Unless you have all your filesystems part of / itself, you run the risk |
| 48 |
> of hitting hard limits rapidly and LVM gives you a proper way to deal |
| 49 |
> with that, unlike using rigid partitions directly. I see a small amount |
| 50 |
> of new code to understand followed by huge benefits. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
I understand the code all right, as I commented to Allan I had no |
| 53 |
problems installing a systemd+LVM machine (with even /boot in LVM). I |
| 54 |
just don't see the benefits (in my use cases). |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> The best way to deal with this actual issue is the ZFS/btrfs approach |
| 57 |
> but those aren't usable for the masses yet, whereas LVM is. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
btrfs sounds cool (specially in SSD), but I'm also waiting for it to |
| 60 |
be stable enough. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Regards. |
| 63 |
-- |
| 64 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
| 65 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
| 66 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
Archives