| |||||||||||||
LPC: Booting and systemdLPC: Booting and systemdPosted Sep 16, 2011 13:19 UTC (Fri) by jond (subscriber, #37669)In reply to: LPC: Booting and systemd by bcl Parent article: LPC: Booting and systemd
This sub-thread amazes me somewhat, because I thought everyone long ago moved to use LVM in nearly all situations.
(Log in to post comments)
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 16, 2011 14:35 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Completely the opposite! After getting burned bad by that corruption bug a few years ago, and trying to untangle spaghetti PVs scattered needlessly by lazy sysadmins, I avoid LVM when I can. For most Linux installs it's needless complexity and a bad temptation.
Yes, I'll still use it for a server that needs it. But with fast SSDs and contiguous 3TB for $120, I haven't needed it for 4 or 5 years.
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 16, 2011 14:44 UTC (Fri) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]
LVM is not an unalloyed win, to say the least, and requires some skill to set up correctly. See http://serverfault.com/questions/279571/lvm-dangers-and-c... for some issues.
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 19, 2011 18:26 UTC (Mon) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
I'm not quite sure it's that bad, i've never had a server failure where LVM was a factor but I've had many times where LVM has saved my bacon with the ability to live upsize filesystems. I could see that on a desktop without battery backed write cache that LVM is probably not useful and trying to shrink live filesystems is fraught with peril but in the server use case it is very useful.
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 16, 2011 18:25 UTC (Fri) by jwakely (subscriber, #60262) [Link]
I always disable LVM on my own systems, I don't feel as though I'm missing out.
|
|||||||||||||