Jon Masters wrote:
> In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes, BTRFS can
> do a lot of volume-y things, and these are growing by the day, but I
> don't want my filesystem replacing a full volume manager and I am
> concerned that this will lead to less testing and exposure to full LVM
> use within the Fedora community. Instead, I'd like to counter-propose
> that everything stay exactly as it is, with users being able to elect to
> switch to BTRFS (sub)volumes if they are interested in doing so.
And I'd like to counter-counter-propose that we just stop using ANY kind of
subvolumes or volume management by default and just default to plain old
partitions. IMHO, LVM causes more problems than it fixes. Sure, you can
easily add storage from another disk, but in exchange there's no
straightforward way to resize your partitions, at least none of the common
partition editors can do it. There's also a performance penalty.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
