| 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 |
Archives