From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-150203-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5543C1381F3
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:13:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id ep20so1573963lab.16
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; 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: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
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>
<CADPrc82JPq_EoGB-crgWYFk3MMSMVUm8jvn=vMJyJbymBdqMkg@mail.gmail.com>
<87sixschz7.fsf@nyu.edu>
<CADPrc83_WQ7nv2OsOju7QH-HyftSJTGk_2K5menHM39KC7CM5A@mail.gmail.com>
<87wqn4ar3w.fsf@nyu.edu>
<d6693248-5a42-46df-8152-ae4561586013@email.android.com>
<CADPrc83fEG0HgfNYn4KoLKh7xCQRNJ7dWAaKR-brDBCN7A7n6w@mail.gmail.com>
<52203746.3090203@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:13:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CADPrc80OgNpr8Zot1o101x7syv+aRNT8ogroRt-Zc3byW09xtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= <caneko@gmail.com>
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 <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> 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 <joost@antarean.org> 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, <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 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