On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Bill Davidsen wrote: > My read on LVM is that (a) it's one more thing for the admin to learn, (b) > because it's seldom used the admin will be working from documentation if it > has a problem, and (c) there is no bug-free software, therefore the use of LVM > on top of RAID will be less reliable than a RAID-only solution. I can't > quantify that, the net effect may be too small to measure. However, the cost > and chance of a finger check from (a) and (b) are significant. this is essentially why i gave up on LVM as well. add in the following tidbits: - snapshots stopped working in 2.6. may be fixed by now, but i gave up hope and this was the biggest feature i desired from LVM. - it's way better for performance to have only one active filesystem on a group of spindles - you can emulate pvmove with md superblockless raid1 sufficiently well for most purposes (although as we've discussed here it would be nice if md directly supported "proactive replacement") and more i'm forgetting. -dean - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
