| 1 |
On 29/08/2017 18:49, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Another example is LVM. You or I might really need it (debatable now we |
| 5 |
>> have ZFS) but the average user has no concept of what it might be, or |
| 6 |
>> care. So why do Ubuntu installers shove it in your face as something |
| 7 |
>> really cool that you should really really use? Because the author of the |
| 8 |
>> installer thinks it's really cool, that's why. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Maybe. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Or maybe because when that computer's hard drive starts getting full |
| 14 |
> and you add a new hard drive, if you're using lvm with a few commands |
| 15 |
> you can make your /home expand across both drives, while with straight |
| 16 |
> partitions that is a lot more work. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> There really is no reason not to use some kind of volume management |
| 19 |
> solution these days, whether that is zfs/btrfs, or lvm. When your |
| 20 |
> data is on lvm it is MUCH easier to move it around than if you just |
| 21 |
> put it directly on drive partitions. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Arguably you want more flexibility around adding/removing drives on |
| 24 |
> the desktop than in the enterprise, because desktop users don't add |
| 25 |
> and remove drives in sets of 5-6. This is why I think btrfs is |
| 26 |
> actually superior to zfs conceptually on the desktop (setting aside |
| 27 |
> the fact that it will tend to eat your data) - the flexibility matters |
| 28 |
> more on the small scale because you want to go from a 3-disk RAID5 to |
| 29 |
> a 4-disk RAID5. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Yes, I know what LVM is for and how to drive it. I think it's wonderful |
| 33 |
software for what it was designed to do, and it's "does what it says on |
| 34 |
the box" score is way up there with much other good stuff. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
But I'm not talking about it for users like you and I. |
| 37 |
I've said over and over in this thread about regular users and you seem |
| 38 |
to be missing that part; it's the entirety of everything I'm saying |
| 39 |
here. I didn't say LVM shouldn't be available, I said that installers |
| 40 |
shouldn't put it up front and centre in the user's face claiming that |
| 41 |
it's awesome. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Your average user has no idea what volume management even is and are |
| 44 |
completely lost when it comes up. They just have no mental image of what |
| 45 |
it even could be and a tool that is not understood and not used is not |
| 46 |
worth installing. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 51 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives