Re: RFC: Switching guided partitioning to LVM by default?
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 04:06:49PM -0400, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Is anyone aware of any drawbacks of switching to LVM by default?
- It makes sharing the disk with other operating systems harder: partman
requires that the LVM PVs are committed to disk before you can play
around with LVs, and since "use the whole disk" creates a single
whole-disk partition for the LVM PV, there will be no space left for
the other operating system if that does not support Linux's LVM.
A user who would wish to create a partition for an alternate operating
system after going through the LVM step would have to destroy all LVM
LVs, destroy the VG, destroy the PVs, change the size of the
partition, and then recreate everyhing again.
- Last I checked (but this may have been changed), the LVM VG created by
the partitioner is given a default name, which confuses the kernel if
you place a disk containing another LVM VG with that same name in the
same machine. This makes recovering a system by placing its disk into
a different machine needlessly complicated.
- While LVM is indeed more flexible than plain partitions, it does add
some overhead in terms of metadata, which is not necessarily useful if
the user is only interested in installing to a single hard disk.
All in all, I'm not convinced that switching this default will be a net
plus for our users.
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008