On Monday, 24 June 2019 16:59:08 BST Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 6/24/19 2:40 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > Yes, I've done the same on two boxes that have no need of lvm. It does
> > seem wasteful though.
>
> Probably.
>
> I dislike the fact that other things that need device mapper have to
> drag LVM along, or apply (what I call) a device-mapper-only /hack/.
>
> I feel like device-mapper should be its own package that other things
> depend on; LVM, RAID (mdadm, et al.), multi-path, LUKS (cryptsetup).
Yes, and that would fit the Unix tradition of doing one thing, and well. It
should also be applied to crypt-setup and its friends.
> > I forget the detail now, but a recent-ish version of sys-fs/cryptsetup
> > found it needed a hard dependency on some of the code in lvm2.
>
> Did you apply (what I call) the device-mapper-only /hack/. Or was LVM
> pulled in for device-mapper?
I didn't know about the hack at the time. I'm hazy about this now, memory not
being what it was, but I think I was trying to get rid of encryption apps as
well as lvm on a box that doesn't use either and never will. I'm stuck with
having both, willy-nilly. As Neil said, though, you could say it's only a
matter of disk space - until someone finds a vulnerability in them and uses it
on me. :(
> > It seems to me that we have here an opportunity for redesign of certain
> > packages. ("We" the community, that is.)
>
> Agreed.
>
> > On this box, which does need lvm for RAID-1 on two SSDs:
> Do you /need/ LVM? Or is it extra that comes with device-mapper?
No, I do actually use lvm to base a raid-1 file system on. I haven't
considered raid-1 without lvm; is that feasible?
--
Regards,
Peter.
