Hi, > > Hm. I can see your points. But I don't need the flexibility LVM provides, > > I have enough flexibility through Btrfs. > > And yeah, it's readily automated, and that's indeed practical for many > > people. Personally, I'd rather modify the start-up process a tiny bit > > so that GPT inside LUKS gets parsed. I just try to strip off unnecessary > > 'overhead' / layers of my system. > Okay, then. > > Here's my opinion on this approach. > > If you have 8 GiB or more and not hibernating, don't bother with swap, > it'd be a waste of disk space. In that case you could just put a btrfs > volume straight on the LUKS container without the GPT. Problem solved as > you don't need any more volume management than opening LUKS containers. > > Otherwise WITH swap: Unfortunately btrfs (still) doesn't support swap > files properly, otherwise I'd suggest using them. You can write a custom > hook. Unless you plan to share it, I'd make it a dead simple shell > script that simply reruns the command to scan for added GPT partitions > for your specific setup. Make sure you have a setup hook that gets the > dependencies in there. > > Personally, I still think you should just use LVM, for the simple reason > you're having trouble with GPT, which is not meant for being used like > this, since it can work as a more flexible "partition table" inside the > LUKS container and is better supported all around. btrfs really doesn't > act as a good replacement for logical volumes, in my experience. Having > something with more features than you need is better than trying to > coerce something into working ways it's not really intended. Thanks for your input! I've reconsidered LVM twice now but still feel better without it. Cheers, Merlin -- Merlin Büge <toni@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
