On 30/08/2013 07:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:21 AM, J. Roeleveld <[email protected]> wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 29 2013, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:19 PM, <[email protected]> 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? 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. 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. 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. -- Alan McKinnon [email protected]
