1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
>>> If there were some kind of trade-off I'd see the argument, but the |
5 |
>>> worst case here is just that they may or may not need it. For |
6 |
>>> something with some benefit and almost no drawback that seems like a |
7 |
>>> wrong reason to avoid LVM. |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>> Sure, it may help a very tiny percentage of people but I suspect it will |
10 |
>> be tiny. Mostly, for the same reasons I pointed out in another reply on |
11 |
>> this thread. |
12 |
>> |
13 |
> IMO the important question isn't how many it helps, but how many it hurts. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> If it helps a tiny number, and it hurts none, then it is a worthwhile default. |
16 |
> |
17 |
|
18 |
That wasn't the point tho. I'm sure a init thingy helps some small |
19 |
number of people but it also hurts some because they have to add one |
20 |
more layer that can fail. I've had init thingys fail on me several |
21 |
times with different distros. If one is not going to use LVM properly, |
22 |
why install it by default and risk a upgrade causing a problem and the |
23 |
lose of data? I use LVM here. I have two 3TBs drives for my /home |
24 |
directory. Before that, I didn't use LVM. Those of us who knows what |
25 |
it is and uses it are not that large a percentage of people. |
26 |
|
27 |
The point is, one shouldn't add LVM to a system when the user will never |
28 |
use it or worse yet, even know what it is or what it is for. It just |
29 |
adds one more thing that can cause problems. |
30 |
|
31 |
Dale |
32 |
|
33 |
:-) :-) |