From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3bsB-0003bg-Ub for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:22:20 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1790D1C061; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:20:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gx0-f181.google.com (mail-gx0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D72801C061 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so779470gxk.40 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:20:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zdRXJSUdqlRrx/xj2KppSETi1dBvIDoBMVK6CpJxAv0=; b=S7lKFyzBBmdhwh5vGFYUPdbvR5FfaKmSkLIkb5NqZK14HWX3ClU497d1FPEIQ97U8l h9cVobRah/8CdYedW5ZyEXUL7QZw4N8BTiQ1w4FmPNVyBE9QhOEjUuONDl1vBVD4D4c2 3K0VFjMDlFNE3f0WkGqcdo/GGSK0Hx8wkF/AQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Xw5l0L5GWRd2eN2l2on3f6eV+A18ySbI6pNTwzEhhpAZPUrYtPnX4udLCtGpPb8pB5 8mmIJkHojDGIyMDfietmXft/LEWR/WbPHQP+IQMKtntKqlQJOH/Z80vIZioqch2HFSLn QbTksX/+h+n+/s78ovzZcoXlrP6dvA2gPQplQ= Received: by 10.91.152.4 with SMTP id e4mr2476966ago.27.1301178051288; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:20:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-0-90-60.jan.bellsouth.net [65.0.90.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x29sm1186171yhc.11.2011.03.26.15.20.49 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4D8E66C0.6080305@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 17:20:48 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.18) Gecko/20110325 Gentoo/2.0.13 SeaMonkey/2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] LVM (Was: the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)) References: <20110326190630.GA2406@gaurahari> <2257101.Z5VrWX5cNr@nazgul> In-Reply-To: <2257101.Z5VrWX5cNr@nazgul> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 276bceddcb0a2ef6216ebad861be32a7 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Saturday 26 March 2011 15:06:31 Elaine C. Sharpe wrote: > >>> Just because something works for most people, doesn't mean it will for >>> everyone either. If you lose data, it doesn't matter. LVM just adds >>> one more layer of something to go wrong. Me, I don't need the extra >>> risk of having a system that doesn't boot and a loss of data. I'm sure >>> there are a lot of people that see it the way I do too. They just >>> don't >>> need the extra risk. >>> >> Using the least number of layers of abstraction you can get away with is >> a perfectly valid criteria. What I was pointing out was that informal >> polls of users with a sad story to tell is not a very effective way to >> conduct research. People say all kinds of things that just aren't true. >> > There's an elephant in this room. The number of actual layers is greater than > just LVM plus FS. It's whatever the BIOS (or a reasonable substitute is > doing), plus the drive firmware, kernel driver(s) - there's more than one of > those - plus any RAID in use (hardware or software) and finally the file > system. > > That's a lot of layers, a lot of code, a lot of opportunity for people to > reveal the extent of their lack of knowledge. I've often heard it said that > code like ZFS and brtfs eliminates several of these layers therefore it's > technically a better option. That may be true, but let me just point out that > whatever LVM+fs+other_stuff is doing as separate chunks of code also gets done > by ZFS etc. You just don't see it, and just because it's abstracted away > doesn't mean it's not there. > > I'll add this. Alan if I recall correctly runs a lot of systems. He has a boatload of experience using all sorts of software/hardware. Me, I don't. For the longest, I had one system and that was it. If I upgrade my kernel, LVM, or some package that LVM depends on and I can't boot, I'm screwed. If I can't boot, I can't google anything to find out how to fix it. I also don't know enough about LVM to fix it myself. Since there is so many layers of things that can already go wrong on a system, adding one more layer that can be complicated only makes a problem grow. I'm sure Alan and many others could go out and buy or build a new system and put LVM on it and fix about any problem that comes along. Thing is, there are others that can't. Add to this that when I was thinking about using it, I read where a lot of people, for whatever reason, couldn't get it back working again and lost data. For me, I don't care if it was LVM itself, the kernel or some combination of other things, if I can't boot or lose data, the result is the same. I can fix a kernel problem, a broken package but if LVM fails, I'm stuck. That said, I now have a second rig. I may at some point use LVM because I can always go to the other room and use my old rig to get help. I already have a 750Gb drive that is about full of pictures, I got a camera and get a little happy at times, and videos I have downloaded, everything from TV series to stuff off youtube. I may buy another large drive and use LVM or something to give me more room since I really don't want to have to break up my filing system across two separate drives. I won't consider putting the booting part of my OS on LVM tho. Of course, I did see a 3Tb drive on sale the other day at newegg. o_O That would last a while. ;-) Dale :-) :-)