Il 2022-01-30 22:39 Stuart D. Gathman ha scritto:
I use LVM as flexible partitions (i.e. only classic LVs, no thin pool). Classic LVs perform like partitions, literally using the same driver (device mapper) with a small number of extents, and are if anything more recoverable than partition tables. We used to put LVM on bare drives (like AIX did) - who needs a partition table? But on Wintel, you need a partition table for EFI and so that alien operating systems know there is something already on a disk.
Classical (fat) LVs are rock solid, but how do you cope with fast (maybe rolling) snapshotting? This is the main selling point of thinlvm.
Since we use LVs like partitions - mixing with btrfs is not an issue. Just use the LVs like partitions. I haven't tried ZFS on linux - it may have LVM like features that could fight with LVM. ZFS would be my first choice on a BSD box.
I broadly use ZFS - and yes, it is a wonderful tools. Than said, it has its own gotcha. For example: - snapshot rollback is a destructive operation (ie: after rollback, you permanently lose the current filesystem state); - clones (writable snapshots) depend on the read-only base image (ie: on the original snapshot), which you can not delete until you have its clones around.
Moreover, snapshotting/cloning a ZFS dataset (or volume) does not appear to be significantly faster then LVM - sometime it requires ~1s, depending on the load.
We do not use LVM raid - but either run mdraid underneath, or let btrfs do it's data duplication thing with LVs on different spindles.
I always found btrfs very underperforming when facing random rewrite workloads as VMs and DBs. Can I ask your experience?
Regards. -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti@xxxxxxxxxx - info@xxxxxxxxxx GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8 _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
