On Thursday 24 March 2011 08:49:52 J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Wed, March 23, 2011 5:43 pm, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 23 March 2011 14:04:23 Mr. Jarry wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann > >> > >> <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > And if you don't care about barriers, jfs might be a good choice. > >> > >> Knowing nothing about "barriers" I tried to find some info and > >> came accross this article: > >> > >> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/tip/Deciding-when-to-use-L > >> inux-f ile-system-barriers > >> > >> It says, barriers can not work with device mapper (raid, lvm). > >> If it is true (?) then because of having all partitions in raid1 (md), > >> I need not worry about barriers. Whatever filesystem I picked out, > >> I could not use barriers... > >> > >> Jarry > > > > md raid devices can do barriers. Don't know about lvm. But lvm is such a > > can > > of worms I am surprised people still recommend it. > > What is wrong with LVM? > I've been using it successfully without any issues for years now. > It does what it says on the box.
it is another layer that can go wrong. Why take the risk? There are enough cases of breakage after upgrades - and besides snapshots... is the amount of additional code running really worth it? Especially with bind mounting?
