Mike - st257 silvertip257 at gmail.com Tue Jun 23 16:40:47 UTC 2015
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Jason Warr <jason at warr.net> wrote:
> > I'm curious what has made some people hate LVM so much. I have been using
> > it for years on thousands of
>
> No clue.
> My experiences with LVM have been positive as well.
> And in opinion it doesn't add much complexity (if you know the LVM tools,
> you're fine). Flexibility is worth an ounce of complexity.
I think LVM is badass, however if you don't know the LVM tools, you're
instantly tossed deep into the weeds. Most every letter, lower and
upper case, seems to be used twice by each of the lvm commands. I
don't have enough fingers to count the number of lvm commands. There's
so much intricate detail required for creating LVM layouts and doing
snapshots and snapshot deletion compared to Btrfs that I've just about
given up on LVM.
I've also never had Btrfs snapshots explode on me like LVM thinp
snapshots have when the metadata pool wasn't made big enough in
advance (and it isn't made big enough by default, apparently). Most
any typical maneuver done on LVM can be done much more easily and
intuitively with Btrfs. So these days I just focus on Btrfs even
though I definitely don't hate LVM.
On desktop Linux, making LVM the default layout I think is a bad
decision. It causes mortal users more trouble than it's worth. I'd be
a bit more accommodating if LVM had integrated encryption with live
bi-directional conversion.
--
Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
