Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:15:30 -0500
> Jason Warr <jason@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I'm curious what has made some people hate LVM so much. I have been
>> using it for years on thousands of production systems with no issues
>> that could not be easily explained as myself or someone else doing
>> something stupid. And even those issues were pretty few and far
>> between.
>>
>> /opens can of worms
>
> Well, I can only tell you my own story, I wouldn't know about other
> people. Basically, it boils down to the following:
>
> (1) I have no valid usecase for it. I don't remember when was the last
> time I needed to resize partitions (probably back when I was trying to
> install Windows 95). Disk space is very cheap, and if I really need to
> have *that* much data on a single partition, another drive and a few
> intelligently placed symlinks are usually enough. Cases where a symlink
> cannot do the job are indicative of a bad data structure design, and
> LVM is often not a solution, but a patch over a deeper problem
> elsewhere. Though I do admit there are some valid usecases for LVM.
>
> (2) It is fragile. If you have data on top of LVM spread over an array
> of disks, and one disk dies, the data on the whole array goes away. I
> don't know why such a design of LVM was preferred over something more
> robust (I guess there are reasons), but it doesn't feel right. A bunch
> of flawless drives containing corrupt data is Just Wrong(tm). I know,
> one should always have backups, but still...
<snip>
I thought it was interesting years ago, having seen and worked with it in
Tru64. These days, if I needed more space, I'd go with plain RAID.
In general, the less complex the better, and the easier to recover when
something fails.
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
