> Feel free. But the more direct a system, the more reliable it is. Basic scientific principle. Agreed. But for a lot of us the marginal decrease in reliability is worth the improvement of administration of our storage systems. > 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 may be a matter of perspective but LVM IMO is less about expansion and more about decoupling. From my perspective LVM brings to storage what Virtual Machines bring to hardware, a separation of the physical hardware from what the OS/Filesystem sees. That's the risk of early adoption. That said, LVM is far from early adopter software. I've been using LVM2 the last five years and I'm currently sitting on a volume group that's been migrated better then three times over the last five years. I've seen posts on here from people, and personally know several, who are building mission critical multi terabyte storage systems built on XFS over LVM over RAID. Granted the hardware is enterprise grade but to me when someone trusts >$100k worth of data to LVM, that says something about the stability of LVM. I don't think one can say the same about BTRFS, or even ext4. -- Drew "Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood." --Marie Curie -- 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
