On Sat October 3 2009, adfas asd wrote: > --- On Sat, 10/3/09, Drew <drew.kay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Drew <drew.kay@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > I didn't use LVM, and don't > > > > trust layering of any technology. > > > > I'm curious as to why you say that? > > > > From my experience almost everything in software is layered > > or an > > abstraction. The Network & Storage stacks are just > > layers of code > > running over top other lower layers. LVM & RAID are > > just another layer > > in the storage stack, and well tested ones I might add. > > Feel free. But the more direct a system, the more reliable it is. Basic > scientific principle. > > To me, LVM just adds a function (expansion) which should be in the RAID > module (and likely soon will be), yet adds a whole 'nother layer of > complexity. No thanks. BTRFS addresses all these issues, but I was an > early adopter and got burned by the loss of my data at a crucial point. > It actually adds volumes, something you just don't get with mdraid. Unless you count partitions, but that is just.. ew. I had LVM blow up in my face too, but it wasn't LVM's fault, it was mine ;) I was the one that was running a "big" (for me, at the time) jbod array with no backups. I can hardly blame the loss of that data on LVM. > > > -- > 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 > -- Thomas Fjellstrom tfjellstrom@xxxxxxx -- 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
