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