Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?

[Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>]

On 30/08/2013 07:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:21 AM, J. Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> wrote:
>> gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 29 2013, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:19 PM, <gottlieb@nyu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have experience with LVM, but not systemd or dracut or initramfs
>>>>>
>>>>> * both grub and grub2 support lvm
>>>>
>>>> Does GRUB legacy handles /boot in LVM? I haven't tried that yet.
>>>
>>> That I don't know. I believe the LVM "companion manual" that I am
>>> seeking and that I used for previous installs advised against /boot on
>>> lvm (probably also /lib and others). Perhaps this was simply
>>> reflecting
>>> no initramfs. Hence any grub issue with /boot on lvm didn't arise.
>>>
>>> allan
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Grub legacy does not support LVM for the /boot.
>> That's why I have it there.
>>
>> UEFI only understands FAT. Which means you need to have a boot partition
>> outside of LVM for that.
> 
> Good to know, thanks. Another reason not to use LVM I guess.

Why not use LVM?

Yes, it is some added complexity you need to understand but it stays out
of your way till you need it, doesn't affect disk efficiency in any
significant way and just works. When you need the services it offers
they are there and until then just use mkfs and mount the block device
it offers.

Unless you have all your filesystems part of / itself, you run the risk
of hitting hard limits rapidly and LVM gives you a proper way to deal
with that, unlike using rigid partitions directly. I see a small amount
of new code to understand followed by huge benefits.

The best way to deal with this actual issue is the ZFS/btrfs approach
but those aren't usable for the masses yet, whereas LVM is.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com