Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/05/2014 12:04, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > Whatever gets rid of LVM is good on my book. I've never understood why
> > people uses it, and in my experience it only brings headaches.
> > Besides, I've heard from many people that btrfs is the way to go in
> > the future. I'm not ready to make the change yet, but I will at some
> > point.
>
>
> LVM is an excellent solution for what it was designed to do, which is to
> deal with stuff like this:
>
> Oops. I misjudged how big /var/log needed to be and now I need to add
> 50G to that partition. But it's sda6 and I have up to sda8. Arggghhhhh!
> Now I need 5 hour downtime to play 15-pieces with fdisk.
>
> LVM makes that 2 commands and 12 seconds. Yes, it's a bit complex and
> you have to hold the PV/VG/LV model in your head, but it also *fixes*
> the issue with rigid MSDOS partition style.
>
> Modern filesystems like ZFS and btrfs sidestep the need for LVM in a
> really elegant and wonderful way, none of which changes the fact that
> ZFS/btrfs weren't around when LVM was first coded.
So is btrfs ready for production -- all the tools work, etc. to the
level that the ext2/3/4 work? Also, what kernel do you need for this to
function -- and last question, how to convert an lvm volume to btrfs, or
do you just have to make some space somewhere and copy the files?
So far, I have liked lvm, what's the advantage of btrfs over lvm?
--
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is:
How do
you spend it?
John Covici
cov...@ccs.covici.com
