On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30/08/2013 07:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:21 AM, J. Roeleveld <jo...@antarean.org> wrote: >>> gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 29 2013, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:19 PM, <gottl...@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
