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 5543C1381F3 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:13:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A4FD4E0E2E; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:13:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com (mail-la0-f43.google.com [209.85.215.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7234CE0DF0 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:13:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id ep20so1573963lab.16 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:13:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=za3jhe8qkw8j+u20xx7WQHFghI2qrIEh9sAmv6LcANY=; b=tT9uKuDBdueoCsZqYS306MGi5DzY7nHK08PAf5sjQuADbpI3kGHqTKDwI6KXP6Fitf kLlf3v/oMe/I4x1xKNAE+aOZsErM1Ve+DN85osCQZlIzK/e6WUGqNvMnLKVmbr6mD/rz oiFazgpoCy6NP60x41Vyii/QBm1PISqusr8vbjAIbI3kJfESMVNKVwaDLoiM1mEDT9QR ef7cFkQ1qGpL8qcr1zMphqajgzQue9eH/zFkkOcSkVwT34CcKP24iPMakeyfnPnvZPka 6lKzbCKKl98qQXLoWWqfegcI17up0LC8hwkprZggIopoaimMahf01YoTrUqlKBJKX5zn Ea7Q== 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 X-Received: by 10.152.228.130 with SMTP id si2mr2148037lac.32.1377871996730; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.96.2 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:13:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <52203746.3090203@gmail.com> References: <87r4dcbisz.fsf@nyu.edu> <87sixschz7.fsf@nyu.edu> <87wqn4ar3w.fsf@nyu.edu> <52203746.3090203@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:13:16 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go? From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 08c27a1b-c219-4cde-bc7d-21b89deba2bd X-Archives-Hash: 24cf92e3df34fe137aaa2179adbd25f0 On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Alan McKinnon wr= ote: > On 30/08/2013 07:36, Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:21 AM, J. Roeleveld wrot= e: >>> gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 29 2013, Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s 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 partitio= n >>> 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. --=20 Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingenier=C3=ADa de la Computaci=C3=B3n Universidad Nacional Aut=C3=B3noma de M=C3=A9xico