| 1 |
Am Fri, 16 May 2014 13:06:41 +0200 |
| 2 |
schrieb Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 16/05/2014 12:04, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Whatever gets rid of LVM is good on my book. I've never understood why |
| 6 |
> > people uses it, and in my experience it only brings headaches. |
| 7 |
> > Besides, I've heard from many people that btrfs is the way to go in |
| 8 |
> > the future. I'm not ready to make the change yet, but I will at some |
| 9 |
> > point. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> LVM is an excellent solution for what it was designed to do, which is to |
| 13 |
> deal with stuff like this: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Oops. I misjudged how big /var/log needed to be and now I need to add |
| 16 |
> 50G to that partition. But it's sda6 and I have up to sda8. Arggghhhhh! |
| 17 |
> Now I need 5 hour downtime to play 15-pieces with fdisk. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> LVM makes that 2 commands and 12 seconds. Yes, it's a bit complex and |
| 20 |
> you have to hold the PV/VG/LV model in your head, but it also *fixes* |
| 21 |
> the issue with rigid MSDOS partition style. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This is precisely why I switched to RAID + LVM several years ago, instead of |
| 24 |
just RAID. No, wait, that's not correct: I remember now that I in fact started |
| 25 |
with just LVM on two differently-sized disks. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
But even without a RAID underneath, you can manage multiple disks (PVs) in one |
| 28 |
or more VGs and do stuff like move partitions between disks. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> Modern filesystems like ZFS and btrfs sidestep the need for LVM in a |
| 31 |
> really elegant and wonderful way, none of which changes the fact that |
| 32 |
> ZFS/btrfs weren't around when LVM was first coded. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
And this is one of the reasons why I switched to btrfs now :) . |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Marc Joliet |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we |
| 40 |
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup |
Archives