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

["Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

I just don't see the point. I have never used it, and now that I have
a test system, I don't see any advantage for my particular use cases.

> 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.

My point exactly; I have never needed its services in 18 years using
Linux (servers and workstation). Again, in my use cases.

> 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.

I understand the code all right, as I commented to Allan I had no
problems installing a systemd+LVM machine (with even /boot in LVM). I
just don't see the benefits (in my use cases).

> 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.

btrfs sounds cool (specially in SSD), but I'm also waiting for it to
be stable enough.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México