On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 13:26 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote: > Mike Burger wrote: > > > It's actually very simple and painless. > > LVM is reasonably simple. > > But in my view its disadvantages - > particularly the difficulty of dealing with any kind of corruption - > far outweigh its advantages. I agree that corruption can be a huge issue for LVM, but it's really an issue for any storage configuration, and needs to be dealt with using other strategies. > The main advantage - the ease with which partition sizes > can be changed - is much less significant > in this era of enormous disks. On the contrary, I think that large disks make LVM even more valuable. As one small example, LVM enables live migration -- moving from one disk to another while a system is running. Back when we were dealing with megabytes of data, the downtime needed to move those megabytes to another disk was small. On a modern box, disks are in the terrabyte range -- approaching a million times larger, but with transfer speeds that are nowhere near a million times faster -- and it can take many hours to migrate between disks. Being able to do that live greatly reduces downtime (to perhaps a few minutes if the disks can't be hot-plugged, or no downtime if the disks are hot-pluggable). (It looks like volume management is moving down to the filesystem level. This will be both good and bad; from an optimization point of view, having the filesystem aware of the low-level storage details will be valuable, but I cringe at the thought of having duplicated tools to do volume management within each different filesystem type). -Chris -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
