Re: [gentoo-user] boot problems

[Marc Joliet <marcec@gmx.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1715 bytes --]

Am Fri, 16 May 2014 13:06:41 +0200
schrieb Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]