begin quoting James G. Sack (jim) as of Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 04:26:06PM -0800: > 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?
Are those two contributions really unique? > > 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. This strikes me as a surperb solution for a single-disk machine. Especially with today's monster disks. > >> 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. Aren't you talking about ZFS now? ;-) -- Is it that ext2/3 is growable, or that LVM does surgery on the filesystem? Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
