Tracy R Reed wrote: > James G. Sack (jim) wrote: >> Whether that's right or not, it's still convenient to call the resulting >> capabilities LVM. Now, it strikes me that the unique contribution by LVM >> is snapshot and data migration (pvmove). That is, could not the >> re-allocation stuff be done outside of LVM? Though I suppose, perhaps >> not as dynamically, eh? > > Oddly enough I have never really made use of those features. I have > played with them of course but 99% of my LVM use is increasing the size > of volumes. This is because I usually don't allocate all of my disk > space. I usually only allocate what I need and then leave the rest to > expand into later. This is much easier than shrinking volumes and then > expanding. > >> Am I talking any sense, here? Is removing indirection/complication worth >> the pain? > > What do you expect to gain by it?
Perhaps I should have used virtualization instead of indirection, and it's all handwaving, of course, but I was thinking that removing a layer could improve performance, mainly latency, I suppose. And not less important, I was thinking that there might be simplification leading to better maintainability and fewer places for bugs to hide. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
