From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E3C31381F3 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:13:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F0EDFE0F7C; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE7E1E0F50 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:13:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hq12so1373124wib.12 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:13:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kuNBKEoVlLW4aVp8Aiwkt2s+3KR4EM3odW0M/jMptk8=; b=K3Dl8L+lHhwi0CZ0AxsrE0NA53VzgazVVlk7kq/tthDZQ6favE1GitwktHV/3taGtK I6iOLGZwWaA41KvmgKR7BIGajtZNAEt97vB5RAMZQ4Woh9f+D5f76PCHdTPDh9c0nqh/ KUYh576Nt8QSj+6lDD7LVqsxmgM0aB4ZBCfeZVvuNhSk6r0CztMHFtRavEEG3wsWFZVn FbRAZRVhoL+AMRs1/g96nx8JrBwuTcgaZ6XGAICO/w+HXedPGcQwdImKLsAAHa/4m6JW rrdsUOsKTE/vNUGZKNPDsmgCi7q0y6OPzldm1OdAL4ivKIRw8uO4pR6XGVxm7ymCdvyF y0dA== X-Received: by 10.180.206.180 with SMTP id lp20mr984030wic.48.1377843231475; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.20.204] (dustpuppy.is.co.za. [196.14.169.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dr11sm1585516wid.3.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <52203746.3090203@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:10:14 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130809 Thunderbird/17.0.8 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] where did lvm installation guide go? References: <87r4dcbisz.fsf@nyu.edu> <87sixschz7.fsf@nyu.edu> <87wqn4ar3w.fsf@nyu.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 4be0627d-70d3-48e1-8723-8854ace2db3a X-Archives-Hash: cd2e9005cf37089f3c0431b2bd2abb22 On 30/08/2013 07:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:21 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote: >> gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 29 2013, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:19 PM, 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