Am Fri, 16 May 2014 13:06:41 +0200 schrieb Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com>:
> 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. This is precisely why I switched to RAID + LVM several years ago, instead of just RAID. No, wait, that's not correct: I remember now that I in fact started with just LVM on two differently-sized disks. But even without a RAID underneath, you can manage multiple disks (PVs) in one or more VGs and do stuff like move partitions between disks. > 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. And this is one of the reasons why I switched to btrfs now :) . -- Marc Joliet -- "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
