| 1 |
On 16/05/2014 12:04, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 2 |
> Whatever gets rid of LVM is good on my book. I've never understood why |
| 3 |
> people uses it, and in my experience it only brings headaches. |
| 4 |
> Besides, I've heard from many people that btrfs is the way to go in |
| 5 |
> the future. I'm not ready to make the change yet, but I will at some |
| 6 |
> point. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
LVM is an excellent solution for what it was designed to do, which is to |
| 10 |
deal with stuff like this: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Oops. I misjudged how big /var/log needed to be and now I need to add |
| 13 |
50G to that partition. But it's sda6 and I have up to sda8. Arggghhhhh! |
| 14 |
Now I need 5 hour downtime to play 15-pieces with fdisk. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
LVM makes that 2 commands and 12 seconds. Yes, it's a bit complex and |
| 17 |
you have to hold the PV/VG/LV model in your head, but it also *fixes* |
| 18 |
the issue with rigid MSDOS partition style. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Modern filesystems like ZFS and btrfs sidestep the need for LVM in a |
| 21 |
really elegant and wonderful way, none of which changes the fact that |
| 22 |
ZFS/btrfs weren't around when LVM was first coded. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 27 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives