On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > Sorry I should clarify, when I say use Btrfs's volume management stuff I mean just doing normal partitions and then creating a Btrfs filesystem and then add disks to the fs as required. Thanks, Josef -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
